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?"

Comments

Nuisance.

[pwnage]

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.

If you replace enough files...

[daveschroeder]

...and are willing to wait some period of time after any official Apple release, you'll always be able to make Mac OS X (Intel) work on non-Apple hardware.

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).

Re:If you replace enough files...

[Reality Master 101]

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.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm on board that just "downloading a DVD" is unethical, but if I BUY an official copy of OS/X, then who the hell is Steve Jobs to tell me what I can or can't do with it?

This is one of the main reasons I dislike Apple as a company: the arrogance. Steve wants to tell me what I can and can't play on an iPod (e.g., suing Real). Steve wants to tell me what I can and can't do with software I buy. Frankly, screw Steve!

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.

Re:If you replace enough files...

[daveschroeder]

I think the problem here is twofold.

1. Apple may never release a standalone copy of Mac OS X (Intel) that you can actually buy without purchasing a machine. With Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard), this may occur, but it is not yet guaranteed. In this scenario, I don't think there is any excusable way in any jurisdiction to run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, since you *must* pirate Mac OS X to do so.

1a. To extend on the above, some people might justify their action by buying a copy of Mac OS X (PowerPC), and reasoning that they've "paid" for Mac OS X, and that therefore it's then okay to pirate Mac OS X (Intel) and use it as they wish. However, that's not an acceptable argument since it's not the same product.

2. Even if a standalone version of Mac OS X (Intel) (or a universal release of Mac OS X) is released at some point, I don't think you can get completely in the clear with your argument. Sure, it's just bits on a plastic disc. You should be able to install it on your Mac, run over it with your car, do nothing with it, juggle it, wipe your ass with it, or even hack it and install it on your PC. Right? Sure, I'm with you. I understand the argument you're making. But, like it or not, this hurts Apple. *You* might not think it hurts Apple, but the only people in the position to *decide* that it hurts Apple - i.e., Apple - have decided that it *does* hurt Apple. Whether it's because of business model or arbitrary decision, that's their decision to make. And if there is law in certain countries/jurisdictions that allows companies to make that kind of determination, I do not see how operating within the bounds of law to protect oneself from injury - whether you are a person or a corporation - is inappropriate.

To ratchet this argument down to being a little more practical, I'd submit that Mac OS X's pricepoint is predicated on the assumption that it's associated with Apple hardware, and that there will be continuing purchases of Apple hardware by satisfied customers running Mac OS X on Apple hardware, ostensibly becausse the quality, attention to detail, and software/hardware integration is so pleasant, and myriad other reasons. Apple loses this control when Mac OS X is not run on Apple hardware. Now, you might say, "tough shit." And in some locales in the world, the government might also agree with you. Great. Congratulations. But that still doesn't change the fundamental truth to what I've just said.

I see it as just a semblance of respect for the work of others.

Re:If you replace enough files...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm on board that just "downloading a DVD" is unethical, but if I BUY an official copy of OS/X, then who the hell is Steve Jobs to tell me what I can or can't do with it?

I agree with you in principal, but OS X for x86 is only available with the purchase of an imac right now (as far as I know) and while it is possible that you might want to take that one license and install it on a different machine while wiping the imac, don't think it is likely. I'm all in favor of hacking the OS and researching, but I'm more than a little leery that this will lead to just another way to get crappy warez versions of OS X hacked up to work on generic boxes without paying for a license. Right now it is just that, a concern. I don't see anything that has been inappropriate yet.

This is one of the main reasons I dislike Apple as a company: the arrogance. Steve wants to tell me what I can and can't play on an iPod (e.g., suing Real). Steve wants to tell me what I can and can't do with software I buy. Frankly, screw Steve!

And here is where you lost me. When did Apple sue Real? As far as I know there has only been one lawsuit and it was Real suing Apple. What Apple did do was change the DRM authentication on the iPods to stop Real's hack from working, but seeing as Real was using Apple's servers to do the authentication I don't think anyone can really fault them for that. It was a very legitimate security and support concern. Hell, I wouldn't let my competitor's use my servers to authenticate their DRM either.

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.

Apple is very successful now and not because they operate using a simplistic view of the market. They are in a market dominated by a monopoly and they can only compete by maintaining a complete vertical chain on their own. Apple sells computers because they can't survive selling software and because they make more money that way. They use software as a differentiator, but they are not an OS company, they are a hardware company. Selling OS X for intel would be huge financial loss. The OS market, like it or not, is basically the pre-installed OS market. MS has that market locked down. Apple can only sell pre-installs on their own hardware. The secondary market of installs after the fact is a small one for the tech savvy. A lot of Apple's customers would be included, but not a significant share of the market. Operating in such a commodity business Apple would have to grab nearly 40% of the market just to break even with the hardware sales losses they would endure. It is just not very likely. I'd like OS X for generic hardware as much as the next guy, but not at the cost of Apple going out of business and it no longer being available in the future. Sorry but a lot of people have looked at this business case including Apple and it just doesn't make sense for them.

Re:If you replace enough files...

[rthille]

excusable way in any jurisdiction to run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, since you *must* pirate Mac OS X to do so.

Not exactly. You could buy an intel mac, and run linux on it, while running OSX on your white-box.

I don't see the problem...

[makoffee]

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?