Slashdot Mirror
OSx86 Cracked Again
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?"
It's more of a nuisance. Even Steve Jobs once famously declared that "anything with a key can be cracked," (or words to that effect). A cracked OS X will play mostly to the geek types, while yielding publicity dividends with the rest of the Wintel crowd. Average consumers will continue to buy whatever OS they choose retail.
Reminder: Apple owns 1/255th of the internet.
The patch replaces the following files:
- AppleSMBIOS
- ATSServer
- diskimages-helper
- Dock
- Finder
- loginwindow
- mach_kernel
- mds
- SystemUIServer
- translate
- translated
So, as long as you have no shame and don't mind running Mac OS X in a state that is completely unsupported, with a different kernel (!), modified in unknown ways, and in a state that won't be able to be updated with any OS or security updates from Apple (until they themselves are cracked), perpetually repeating this scenario ad nauseum, and also have no problems either:
- pirating Mac OS X, which is the current only way of obtaining Mac OS X (Intel), and
- seem to think that a commercial manufacturer's wishes for its products amount to nothing (e.g., via the EULA, perhaps claiming EULAs aren't enforceable in your jurisdiction)
...then I'm sure you'll be able to run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware indefinitely.
Is this actually surprising?
Someday, Apple - you know, the entity that has invested billions of dollars, all told, and countless thousands upon thousands of manhours in the development of Mac OS X and its associated products - may choose to partner with specific x86 vendors and specific hardware products to allow Mac OS X to run on non-Apple hardware at some point in the future. But for now, I love the editorial slant of x86project.org:
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.
"When all it requires is the downloading of a DVD"? I'm sorry, but even if you claim they're just "telling it like it is", that attitude has absolutely no respect for the hard work of others. Forget copyright. Forget the DMCA. What about just pure ethics? I suppose if one is a relativist, they might ask, "Ethics? By whose standards?"
And again: if you change enough of Mac OS X, of course you'll be able to get it to work on non-Apple hardware. It will take some reverse engineering and time, but it will always happen. This doesn't mean TPM is any less "secure" for its purposes. Ironically, it actually validates TPM: trusted computing is designed to make a platform just that: trusted, and operating in a predictable state. This hack job on Mac OS X (Intel) is anything but.
I'm glad people are so smug in their beliefs that it's okay to have an utter lack of regard for the work product of others to produce an excellent product, one whose creation is predicated on the business model that company has chosen: namely, to sell HARDWARE along with their operating system. Apple has every right to choose that as the mechanism for selling its product. Even if Mac OS X (Intel) is sold standalone (as it may be in the form of Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard).
I wonder sometimes, with things like the iPod and the iMac's new FrontRow if Apple isn't slowly heading towards "information appliances" as its primary method of support, rather than simply a PC competitor with a nice interface.
Maybe in a few years it won't matter if OS X runs on commodity boxes, as Apple won't really be competing with them as their main business. Apple/TiVo anyone?
Don't get me wrong. I'd LOVE to get OSX running on my PC. It would be an early birthday present.
But if the process is easy, Joe Sixpack will look at Apple like they do Microsoft: "it keeps crashing"
I doubt Apple has any drivers written for even the more common hardware out there. Chipsets, NICs, video cards, sound cards, etc. Sure, you might be able to get it running in a beige box, but too many will be outside of OSX's driver realm.
Of course, this will lead to normal users saying "Gollleee, now I can run OH ESS EKKS on my Walmart laptop by downloading it from the torrent thingeee." The next thing you know, they're cursing Apple's name as being a bunch of programmer hacks.
......That Apple is letting people outside it's organization be coders and beta testers to get OS X security issues out of their distro. Then they'll annouce that they've "magically" hardened the OS to make it less crackable so they can continue to rake in the profits from selling hardware.
But that's likely my tinfoil conspiracy hat talking.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
This article is a little hard on Apple. I've never been hired to clean out an Apple clogged with malware or viruses, meanwhile MS is my moneymaker. Pound for pound, wouldn't you agree that Apple has one way or another done a much better job in security in general? Even taking into account that MS is somehow a bigger target?
Why should apple bother with "security measures" that actively prevent users from running OSX on regular (non-apple) PCs in the first place?
Apple should just declare that they will not provide any support and anyone installing it is doing it on his/her own risk...
An officially unsupported OS will always be crippled compared to the supported one,
It'll crash, it won't have proper driver support and it won't be updated nearly as fast.
Users would eventually figure that using OSX on regular, unsupported PCs is too much trouble and would thus cease from doing so.
Sigs are for the weak.
It's not going to affect Apple's bottom line. Until someone with only moderate computer skills as opposed to advanced computer skills can pull this off, it'll have exactly no appeal. And Apple's going to break whatever they do with every update. Sure, it's nice for the few hundred people who do it, but otherwise, it's not a serious threat to Apple.
From TFA:
"Will it persuade Steve Jobs that releasing his OS is an insanely great idea?"
I don't think so, Apple wants to produce a quality product, and can control the hardware and the OS, so it's fairly easy to make it a very stable product.
If they would want to release a version that runs on all (intel) x86 PC's they won't be able to have as much stability and quality control at all, and might give end users a bad feeling about this producs just as lots of people are annoyed with those driver issues that plague the Windows world (in terms of stability)...
Dependency hell? =>
They're new to x86. Hackers have been here for *decades*.
Welcome to the mainstream, Apple.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Well, unless the procedure is easy to do, it's very unlikely to dent Apple's sales because many of the people who buy Macs don't want a hack job and will continue to buy a refined product. People who enjoy tweaking their systems and people who like to do this sort of thing who normally wouldn't get exposure to OS X will play with it and maybe they will like what they see. This in turn may lead them to buy a genuine Mac, or at least maybe buy, develop, or support OS X software.
I see this kind of like the DRM in iTunes. It's almost trivial to bypass, but good enough to keep an honest person honest. Building a bulletproof DRM is rather futile because people determined to do it will hammer it down eventually. I think Apple may have a similar philosophy here--good enough to keep honest people honest, or at least those who just want to use it, not build it (listen to music or use the computer).
marketing.
Cracked OSX environments can float around. They'll make almost no impact on sales, as they will be completley unsupported and a royal PITA to keep patched. Meanwhile, it will mean a lot of hackers out there who would otherwise not touch an Apple computer a close, personal look at what they are missing out on. If a tiny fraction of those people like what they see, more Macs get sold.
Meanwhile, Apple only needs to apply just enough security that non-hardcore hackers will consider OSx86 to be not worth the hassle, especially when the Intel-based Macs (so far) offer fairly similar ! for the $ to the other major brands.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
So you super hackers out there, you are only helping Apple secure the OS, helping them lock it tighter and tighter to their hardware. By releasing these cracks now, you give Apple an education, a lesson plan to learn from, so that they can do it better next time. If you wait until after OS X for Intel is out and *then* release the crack for it, then Apple will have a hell of a time stopping it. Don't release your cracks now, for goodness sakes. Wait until it's for sale, on the shelves. Please stop teaching Apple how to lock it down better. :)
This sig intentionally left blank.
I reject the argument that being able to run MacOS on any generic x86 box will hurt Apple in terms of stability or image. Sure, you might be running a slick looking OS on a beige box, but that doesn't mean that it won't be any less stable than official Apple hardware. (That is, unless Apple intentionally cripples their OS...)
ConsultingFair.com
Apple could be so much more successful if they would stop being such a-hole control freaks and just sell their products and embrace people wanting to use THE SOFTWARE AND HARDWARE THAT THEY FREAKING OWN the way the want to.
Do you own a PS2? Nintendo DS? Or any console for that matter?
If so welcome to the world of not necessarily being able to use your software/hardware in a way you'd like.
OSX is tied to Mac hardware. Consoles are locked down from running arbitrary software. Why? Because in both cases one doesn't make enough money without the thing it's tied to.
A console doesn't have the margins to be viable independently. In a Windows world OSX probably couldn't compete as an OS alone and generate enough money.
You can say that the they should sell them at a price point where they are viable... but I'd suggest such a price point likely doesn't exist!
An Xbox 360 sells for around $400 - at a loss! If MS charged say $600 instead, how many less machines would actually sell? Would there be enough penetration it make it worth while for the software developers time to develop for it?
How much would OSX cost to be profitable on its own? How reliable would it be running on unknown combinations of commodity hardware?
Now I agree that it should be legal for you to modify your hardware/software locks to run as you see fit. That will dissuade enough people that the market remains viable. I don't think, however, that you should bitch that the locks are there to begin with!
Blockwars: free, multiplayer game.
"They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
I can't afford a decent mac (yes I have a mini at work and it blows), but I can certanly afford a retail copy MacOS X and would gladly install it on my home PC if I could.
I don't understand why Apple is missing the boat here. I'm waving my $150 at you Steve Jobs come and get it. If you would just sell it to people you'd have the number one os in the world. (and #1 in my heart)
Just think of being able to ACTUALY choose your OS. Linux/Mac/Windows on the same hardware - Why not?
-makoffee
The fact of the matter is that Apple doesn't really care about people running OSX on a non-apple system.
They don't? Why would OS X have security measures then? Steve Jobs himself has spoken out against such "theft."
It's money in their pocket either way.
How is it money in their pocket when someone pirates a cracked DVD of OS X? Apple isn't getting a cent. It's just more freeloaders who don't want to pay for stuff and think that's a valid reason to pirate everything under the sun.
"Sufferin' succotash."
The hackers and a handful of tech savy users that want OS X on generic hardware are irrelevant. All Apple needs to do is prevent someone with the skills of an average user from being able to get Mac OS X working reliably on generic hardware. The generic PCs running Mac OS X will be novelties, more conversation pieces than serious work environments. There will not be a robust set of drivers, merely what ships on genuine Apple hardware. Apple can break the hack used to get it to work every system software update. It will be a somewhat unreliable machine, unavailable for days at a time while hackers reverse engineer and workaround the latest software update. Will they do so, sure, but it will be irrelevant to mainstream users.
I think Apple realizes that letting people put OS X on commodity hardware isn't going to make it into the "dominant OS." There are still too many things tying people to Windows, and too many nasty weapons Microsoft could drag out if anyone ever started to threaten their core markets. Apple can't afford to challenge Microsoft directly.
What Apple suspects -- and what I believe -- is that OS X on commodity boxes would probably just cannibalize existing Apple sales, convert them to [whitebox NewEgg PC + pirated bittorrent copy of MacOS] "sales," and drive the company quickly out of business. And once Apple is gone, that would be the end of the line for MacOS. Microsoft would really have won.
I think it's also important to look back to 10 years or so ago, and remember that it was the same sort of 'commodity hardware' thinking that led to the CHRP and Mac Clone era. In retrospect, that came close to killing Apple -- and not surprisingly, when it became clear that other manufacturers' hardware running MacOS wasn't converting legions of Wintel users to Mac, but instead just drawing existing Apple customers to someplace else, Apple killed the clones. That's the historical lesson that I assume is forefront in the minds of everyone in Apple's management, and I doubt that they're going to repeat the mistake.
Apple's "magic smoke," it's jene se qua, that keeps customers coming back and paying that "Mac Tax," is based on a lot more than just the MacOS (which at the end of the day is really a pretty interface and HAL on top of BSD). It's utterly dependent on maintaining a tight control over the hardware and the software. It's not sustainable without that control, and that's why I think it'll be a cold day in hell before you see Apple willingly sell a retail version of MacOS for boxes that aren't theirs.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
If Apple had 90%, 80%, or even just approaching 50% of PC marketshare, we could start talking about antitrust concerns. Until then, go away.
Last I had read on the subject, their concern with OSX on the intel platform has little to do with competition. The major concern is that they want to control the hardware configuration so they can control the image they present. If you can just run out and buy OSX and slap it on any intel box with random hardware, there could be incompatabilities that makes their OS look unstable. They want to make sure that OSX ships only on hardware that is known to not have issues. This control also reduces support costs since they don't have to guess as to what chips are involved.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
This is not quite true. Assuming he actually wouldn't have bought the Lamborghini, which is pretty reasonable for most people, he definitely isn't actually hurting the manufacturer. However, he probably would have bought some other car instead, so he is hurting Ford, or Toyota, or Honda, or whatever company.
Therefore, your argument does not apply particularly well in the software world or in the music world. Suppose someone pirates Windows, but he would have run Linux otherwise. That person isn't particularly hurting the Linux community unless he would have contributed. He's also not hurting Microsoft if he wouldn't have bought Windows anyway. Similarly, with music, inferior music generally does not come at lower prices, so pirates of Good Band X certainly wouldn't have bought Less-Good Band Y.
The reason that piracy usually does hurt software (and arguably music) companies is that while the pirates wouldn't have bought all the stuff they pirated, they probably would have bought some of it. Most of the ones that say they wouldn't are lying, plain and simple. Therefore, if the extra press created by more copies of the pirated stuff floating around isn't enough to cancel the lost sales (and it isn't if everyone pirates everything), then the companies lose money.
In this case, it's unclear. If you buy OS X and run it illegally on a Dell laptop or something, Apple doesn't get the margin on the sales of whatever Mac you would have bought, but they do get the margin on OS X, which is nearly the full price you paid. Depending on the margins and on the number of people who would have actually bought the Mac, Apple may be better off here. However, Apple is certainly not making money if you copy OS X and run it illegally, unless you decide that you love it but want better the driver support you'd get with a real Mac.
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
There is a difference here.
Apple has been making hardware for a long time and that is their primary business, making computer hardware. The fact that they have developed a brilliant OS to run on their hardware is another issue. Naturally this OS is only available on their hardware.
Now, Microsoft has been making software for a long time and this is their primary business. They do make some hardware but not full computers. If they move into that area they wouldn't be able to do anti-competitive things like making their software only run on their hardware.
MS software has previously ran on all PC hardware, to change this would be anti-competitive. MacOS has never before ran on PC hardware.
(\(\
(^.^)
(")")
*This is the cute bunny virus, please copy this into your sig so it can spread