Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

OSx86 Cracked Again

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the oneupmanship dept.

The Cardboard God writes "The OSx86 Project is reporting that the intrepid hacker 'Maxxuss' has once again eluded Apple's security methods and cracked the latest release of Mac OS X for Intel, or 'OSx86', to run on standard x86 PCs. It seems Apple just can't win this eternal struggle with the hackers, as 10.4.4 included beefed up security designed to prevent similar hacking methods used on beta releases of the operating system. Is this a blessing for Apple, or simply a nuisance?"

14 of 707 comments (clear)

  1. Apple is a hardware company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    It will not be good for Apple. Apple makes it's money from it's hardware. They make good software to sell that hardware. The OS alone will drastically reduce revenue.

  2. Cache by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Coral Cache of link
    Posted anonymously to avoid karma whoring, so feel free to mod this up.

  3. Slashdoted . . . by anandpur · · Score: 5, Informative

    Happy Valentines Day... from Maxxuss.

    The hacking guru has announced preliminary patches for Apple's latest release of OS X for Intel, version 10.4.4. According to his website, http://maxxuss.hotbox.ru/
    This is a preliminary release of my Patch Solution for the official Mac OS X on the Intel platform. Ultimately, it would allow you to run this Mac OS X release on a generic x86 computer (SSE2 required).

    There's still a lot of work and documentation to do, like support for SSE2-only CPUs, a proper installation procedure and a PPF patch. However, if you like to play around, this will get you started.
    The significance of this event is huge. While many users were able to run OSx86 on their PCs last summer, the general feeling was that Apple hadn't implemented their final security solution. That much was true.

    Onlookers have told us that 10.4.4 is a serious step forward in security, utilizing many of the same technologies as the 10.4.1 and 10.4.3, as well as the obfuscated code that Apple filed a patent for a few months ago.Few expected this final version - or at least the version that shipped with the first Macintels - to be easy to hack.

    What this means is that Apple's best attempts to secure their OS have, ultimately, failed. For its best efforts, the company is unable to lock OS X to their hardware. Without doubt, this will have profound impacts on the company's future as running OSx86 on a PC becomes less a hacker's trick and more mainstream. When all it requires is the downloading of a DVD, that's certainly the future we're looking at.

    This also opens a host of new questions for Apple, OS X, and the PC users who love it. Will this mark the beginning of Apple's legal endeavors to keep OS X locked down? Will it persuade Steve Jobs that releasing his OS is an insanely great idea?

    Time will tell. Things keep getting more exciting. Stay Tuned.

  4. Re:If you replace enough files... by rainman_bc · · Score: 3, Informative

    Apple could be so much more successful

    Let's take a trip in the way back machine for moment.

    Once upon a time, Apple tried to open up its system to being cloned, and only achieved 7% market share.

    Then Jobs came back, stopped allowing the Mac to be cloned, and introduced the iMac to the world. Jobs saved Apple and brought them to profitability.

    So who's correct? You or Jobs?

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  5. Very, very simple.... by gdamore · · Score: 2, Informative

    Its really, really simple.

    MacOS X is licensed to run on one computer, and one computer only. Now, if you bought MacOS X to run on your MAC, and then installed it on your PC -- I surely hope you deinstalled it from your MAC. Because if you didn't you'd be in violation of your EULA.

    Apple is certainly going to try very, very hard to prevent folks from running MacOS on non-Apple h/w, because lets face it, MacOS is just a vehicle to sell hardware. You can argue that you should be able to purchase a Mac, throw the h/w away, and then put MacOS on your PC. Of course, you'd still be violating the EULA.

    Apple has a right to try to make it "hard" to do this -- you're trying to use the product in a way that it is not sold for. I'd do the same if I were Apple, precisely to prevent folks from pirating it, unless I was prepared to shift gears into being a *software* company. (And then I'd probably try to come up with another solution, ala XP's hated activation.)

    Even if Apple starts selling MacOS X separately, they have every right to have a EULA that requires it to run on Apple hardware. And they have a right to reasonable technical measures to ensure that you're not in violation of the EULA. (The caveat here is that I think they need to disclose the requirement "only for use with Apple hardware" on the packaging.)

    If you don't like that requirement, then vote with your feet and don't buy it. Certainly, don't *steal* it buy pirating it.

    And that's really what it comes down to, isn't it? Folks aren't happy because Apple wants to make money on hardware, and they've come up with a nify OS for it. While I agree it would be nice to run that nifty OS on some other hardware, I cannot force it. So, if I want to use the OS, I have to pay the piper ...err Apple. Too rich for my blood? Live without. (And ultimately, that's the choice I've made. I don't have a MAC, and as nice as MacOS seems, I actually prefer to use Solaris. So I'm no Apple fanboy.)

    Btw, I feel the same way about DRM'd media. If the media companies properly disclose any use limitations, then we the consumers have no *rights* to do otherwise with the content. Don't like it, don't buy it, and don't use it.

    The there is no god-given right to use MacOS X, nor is there one to watch a given movie on your personal computer. Either live with the licensing restrictions or go elsewhere. (And for pete's sake, don't pirate. Show some strength in your convictions if you're going to proclaim the evilness of DRMd content.)

    1. Re:Very, very simple.... by gdamore · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm not sure the IBM case is relevant. IBM probably didn't have an EULA that required IBM DOS to run on IBM hardware. In any case, MS-DOS was available separately (not sure when MS released their edition of DOS, though), and wouldn't have had such an EULA (microsoft being a s/w company had no reason to promote IBM's PC lock-in). To some extent the case here predates shrink-wrap license agreements anyway. (Also, IBM *published* the BIOS source code, but under very limited terms!)

      If someone built a 100% Mac clone, it would be legal. But would it be legal to run MacOS on it? Probably not? EULAs stipulate no more than one copy on a computer a time. Some EULAs stipulate you can't use the software for "life-threatening" purposes (nuclear power, weapons, or aircraft control as an example.) GPLv3 has all kinds of license restrictions in it. Why couldn't Apple's EULA just as well stipulate a hardware restriction? I don't see a fundamental legal difference here. Its their code, they can license it under whatever terms they see fit.

      As far as PearPC goes, there is no leverage. PearPC isn't in violation of the terms (well, they might be, but that's a different problem), its the *end-users* who are in violation. Apple's case in court is very shaky at best.

      It used to be that certain techniques could be used to reverse engineer for the purposes of e.g. building a clone. With DRM and DMCA, the rules have changed. If PearPC *reverse engineers* MacOS for the purposes of breaking the DRM, within the USA they could have big trouble with DMCA.

      Of course, in jurisdictions where DMCA is not valid, Apple can't fight the cloners. But they can still go after end-users who violate the EULA.

  6. The retail boxes are technically upgrades by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 2, Informative

    If they stopped selling retail versions of their new OS, it would be a huge loss of revenue.

    The retail boxes are technically upgrades. The requirements include a computer that shipped from the factory with Mac OS. The GP is correct, if you are not running on a Mac it technically is piracy, you are using an upgrade as a full product.

    1. Re:The retail boxes are technically upgrades by IvanXQZ · · Score: 3, Informative

      The retail boxes are technically upgrades. The requirements include a computer that shipped from the factory with Mac OS. The GP is correct, if you are not running on a Mac it technically is piracy, you are using an upgrade as a full product.

      100% false. The retail boxes are full installers that run on any supported Mac, whether or not that Mac has any OS installed.

      The only "upgrade" CD's are those that are bundled with computers which have an earlier OS pre-installed because the new OS was recently released. Sometimes you have to pay them $19.95 to have them send it to you if it didn't come in the box. They say "upgrade" clearly on the CD label.

      The upgrade CD is also a full installer, no different than the retail box, but it refuses to install if it can't first find a drive with the previous or current OS on it. However, the new OS doesn't have to be installed on the same drive as the existing OS, meaning if you've got any computer with the previous or current OS installed, you can put it into Target (FireWire) disk mode, plug it into the machine you want to install onto, and the upgrade CD will let you proceed as usual.

      So the retail kits are neither technically nor legally upgrades. You may well be right that Apple doesn't want to sell retail copies of the OS to someone who hasn't also spent money on Apple hardware, but that hardly makes it piracy or even an abuse of an upgrade to do so. Of course, before Intel Macs existed, it was impossible (or at least highly implausible) to run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, so it's conceivable that when they release a retail version of Intel OS X (which they very likely will with 10.5), the license agreement may specify that you may only run it on Apple-manufactured hardware, and then you'll be in violation if you do otherwise. But that still doesn't make it piracy, or misusing an upgrade. It just puts you in violation of the EULA, whoop de do.

  7. Re:If you replace enough files... by yo_tuco · · Score: 2, Informative

    "Microsoft has rarely (if ever) used the lawsuit as a weapon."

    Oh, ask David Zamos, a poor college student, who was under attack from Microsoft. http://clevescene.com/issues/2005-03-30/news/featu re_print.html And the best part, he WON all by himself.

    -

  8. Re:Yup as long as Dell isn't doing it by jocknerd · · Score: 2, Informative

    That is theoretical only. He hasn't tried it.

  9. Re:If you replace enough files... by Raffaello · · Score: 3, Informative

    Likewise, once you've lawfully obtained a copy of MacOS-X, Apple loses all rights to dictate how that copy may be used.

    You never lawfully obtain a copy of Mac OS X to do with whatever you wish.

    You only lawfully enter into a license agreement with Apple, the terms of which require you to run Mac OS X on Apple hardware.

    Just in case any readers are unaware of this fact, it is perfectly legal for you to agree to a license that removes rights you would otherwise have. You may have the right to do anything you like with certain products in the absence of a license agreement governing your purchase. But it is perfectly legal for a vendor to sell a product by means of a license agreement which removes rights you would otherwise have had. When you agree to the license, you are bound by it, including those portions that restrict or remove rights you would otherwise have had in the absence of the license agreement. If you don't like the license agreement you are free not to purchase the product, or to return it for a refund. You are not legally entitled to unilaterally rewrite the terms of the license agreement to suit your desires.

    You may dislike the fact that you never lawfully obtained a copy of Mac OS X to do with whatever you wish, but there is no ambiguity about your situation as far as the law is concerned. A recent federal court ruling has upheld click-through EULAs. As far as US law is concerned, they are fully valid license agreements, including terms that restrict or remove rights which purchasers normally have in the absence of such agreements. Click through EULAs were specifically ruled to waive fair use rights. (see page 23 of the linked decision)

  10. Re:Yup as long as Dell isn't doing it by damiam · · Score: 2, Informative

    And the people that have tried it say it doesn't work.

    --
    It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
  11. Re:10.4.5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    10.4.5 has just been released.
    http://www.apple.com/support/downloads/macosxupdat e1045.html

  12. Re:This should not be considered hacking by ABaumann · · Score: 2, Informative

    Where the hell do you get the $1000 number?

    The Acer Core Duo runs for $2500 at http://www.buy.com/prod/Acer_TravelMate_8200_LX_TA X06_034_Mainstream_Notebook_with_Intel/q/loc/212/2 02166276.html

    A comparable MacBook Pro (upgraded to 2GB RAM and 120 GB HD) runs at about $2900 from the Apple Store.

    Let's see, that's a $400 difference. Hmm...