4 ms·

I'm not in the business, but I'm sure that the console makers, since they sell someone else's software, must probably take all measures to protect intellectual

by wiz21c 10y ago

I'm not in the business, but I'm sure that the console makers, since they sell someone else's software, must probably take all measures to protect intellectual property. They must probably be able to demonstrate that to lawyers (and the lawyers for Electronic Arts may probably be of the most convincing type. )

criddell 10y ago
And since so many games have a multi-player component, they also have to protect the integrity of online play.
ethbro 10y ago
What would make an "Other OS" feature enable piracy? Especially nowadays where the online service component is manufacturer hosted and controlled and we have access to relatively hard TPMs. Sure, the hypothetical pirater now has access to device drivers and an open OS environment, but why wouldn't something like SecureBoot work to ensure that if you want to connect to the multiplayer / social network then you have to have loaded an unmodified OS as verified by the TPM. No one said SecureBoot was a terrible idea technically, only that MS (and ARM/Android) were telling half-lies about a strong commitment to customers being able to make another OS choice, if they so choose.
- pandaman 10y ago
  >What would make an "Other OS" feature enable piracy? It was an attack vector and it allowed the initial hypervisor dump[1], which led to the PS3 getting hacked. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Hotz#PlayStation_3_security https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Hotz#PlayStation_3_secu...
  - ethbro 10y ago
    That's the security through obscurity model though. As fail0verflow continually notes in their blogs [1], piracy is the least interesting use case of exploits for them. Yes, the additional attack surface available when loading a user-controlled OS is helpful in writing exploits. But Sony bungling the PS3's PRNG for code signing would have still been broken even without Other OS. [1] https://fail0verflow.com/blog/2016/console-hacking-2016-postscript/ https://fail0verflow.com/blog/2016/console-hacking-2016-post...
    - pandaman 10y ago
      >That's the security through obscurity model though. Not quite. "Security through obscurity" refers to obscurity being the only layer of security. PS3 still had encryption and in ideal world, if the software was completely exploit free then it would not be an issue. However, all real software has bugs, which could be exploited. Not making it easy for an attacker to find these bugs is the Security 101. Do you open file system on your servers for read to everyone? Do you enable guest accounts on your systems? If you don't you are also practicing "security through obscurity". >As fail0verflow continually notes in their blogs [1], piracy is the least interesting use case of exploits for them. A search for e.g. "CFW PS3" will reveal a lot of people who are quite of opposite opinion.
      - ethbro 10y ago
        You're being pedantic. Enabling or disabling another OS (while having the ability as the manufacturer to add hardware security mechanisms) is not STO in the same way that a guest account is. And furthermore, if my OS of choice has a security model that's so fragile that I don't trust guest accounts not to escalate then I've probably got larger problems. Like most of HN, I'm familiar with the definition. As to the group's feelings, I'll quote them, "On the PS3, we tried releasing the exploits and letting others sort out the community. The result was that, for all practical purposes, the only users were those interested in piracy." https://fail0verflow.com/blog/2015/console-hacking-2015-liner-notes/ https://fail0verflow.com/blog/2015/console-hacking-2015-line... The PS3 piracy script kiddies you highlight are exactly my point. Peek in on any of those communities and you'll be hard-pressed to find the caliber of technical skill required to engineer actual exploits. Hell, if it's not in (1) click this, (2) copy exactly this text, (3) ... form then you still see people bricking their hardware. Remove the necessity of an exploit for running the interesting use cases (even an "Hardware will be opened up after 1 year of sales" promise as suggested), and suddenly the actually talented people are doing more interesting things than trying to assault your security model.
        pandaman 10y ago
        So you do keep guest accounts? In this case your security advice is appreciated but, I am afraid, is going to be ignored :) > Peek in on any of those communities and you'll be hard-pressed to find the caliber of technical skill required to engineer actual exploits. I am curious: so who, in your opinion, has been making all the CFWs for Xbox, Xbox 360, PS3, PSP, Vita, 3DS etc? Who made modchips, dongles and flashcarts for other systems? Who cracks PC releases? Space aliens? People eager to run Linux inside Call of Duty? People who need to run their website off a 3DS? Most piracy users are dumb kids but it does not mean all people in the scene are. You only need one person to exploit the system and then the whole world can just copy the method. >Remove the necessity of an exploit for running the interesting use cases (even an "Hardware will be opened up after 1 year of sales" promise as suggested), and suddenly the actually talented people are doing more interesting things than trying to assault your security model. Why should anyone believe this? Do you have anything to support this claim? Here is an idea: if you are really running systems with enabled guest accounts as you implied - tell the board where they could be found. I am sure nothing bad is going to happen :)
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- wiz21c 10y ago
  I just wanted to emphasize that the console maker, somehow, has to to demonstrate it takes appropriate measures to protect intellectual property. If the lawyers of the game publisher can prove that they are legally forced to use all measures technically available, then they will comply. The fact that there exists other, less or more secure, operating system is not a question here. It's just the relationship between, say, EA FIFA 17 legal team and Microsoft game distribution team.

by wiz21c 10y ago

criddell 10y ago

And since so many games have a multi-player component, they also have to protect the integrity of online play.

ethbro 10y ago

What would make an "Other OS" feature enable piracy? Especially nowadays where the online service component is manufacturer hosted and controlled and we have access to relatively hard TPMs. Sure, the hypothetical pirater now has access to device drivers and an open OS environment, but why wouldn't something like SecureBoot work to ensure that if you want to connect to the multiplayer / social network then you have to have loaded an unmodified OS as verified by the TPM. No one said SecureBoot was a terrible idea technically, only that MS (and ARM/Android) were telling half-lies about a strong commitment to customers being able to make another OS choice, if they so choose.

pandaman 10y ago
>What would make an "Other OS" feature enable piracy? It was an attack vector and it allowed the initial hypervisor dump[1], which led to the PS3 getting hacked. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Hotz#PlayStation_3_security https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Hotz#PlayStation_3_secu...
- ethbro 10y ago
  That's the security through obscurity model though. As fail0verflow continually notes in their blogs [1], piracy is the least interesting use case of exploits for them. Yes, the additional attack surface available when loading a user-controlled OS is helpful in writing exploits. But Sony bungling the PS3's PRNG for code signing would have still been broken even without Other OS. [1] https://fail0verflow.com/blog/2016/console-hacking-2016-postscript/ https://fail0verflow.com/blog/2016/console-hacking-2016-post...
  - pandaman 10y ago
    >That's the security through obscurity model though. Not quite. "Security through obscurity" refers to obscurity being the only layer of security. PS3 still had encryption and in ideal world, if the software was completely exploit free then it would not be an issue. However, all real software has bugs, which could be exploited. Not making it easy for an attacker to find these bugs is the Security 101. Do you open file system on your servers for read to everyone? Do you enable guest accounts on your systems? If you don't you are also practicing "security through obscurity". >As fail0verflow continually notes in their blogs [1], piracy is the least interesting use case of exploits for them. A search for e.g. "CFW PS3" will reveal a lot of people who are quite of opposite opinion.
    - ethbro 10y ago
      You're being pedantic. Enabling or disabling another OS (while having the ability as the manufacturer to add hardware security mechanisms) is not STO in the same way that a guest account is. And furthermore, if my OS of choice has a security model that's so fragile that I don't trust guest accounts not to escalate then I've probably got larger problems. Like most of HN, I'm familiar with the definition. As to the group's feelings, I'll quote them, "On the PS3, we tried releasing the exploits and letting others sort out the community. The result was that, for all practical purposes, the only users were those interested in piracy." https://fail0verflow.com/blog/2015/console-hacking-2015-liner-notes/ https://fail0verflow.com/blog/2015/console-hacking-2015-line... The PS3 piracy script kiddies you highlight are exactly my point. Peek in on any of those communities and you'll be hard-pressed to find the caliber of technical skill required to engineer actual exploits. Hell, if it's not in (1) click this, (2) copy exactly this text, (3) ... form then you still see people bricking their hardware. Remove the necessity of an exploit for running the interesting use cases (even an "Hardware will be opened up after 1 year of sales" promise as suggested), and suddenly the actually talented people are doing more interesting things than trying to assault your security model.
      - pandaman 10y ago
        So you do keep guest accounts? In this case your security advice is appreciated but, I am afraid, is going to be ignored :) > Peek in on any of those communities and you'll be hard-pressed to find the caliber of technical skill required to engineer actual exploits. I am curious: so who, in your opinion, has been making all the CFWs for Xbox, Xbox 360, PS3, PSP, Vita, 3DS etc? Who made modchips, dongles and flashcarts for other systems? Who cracks PC releases? Space aliens? People eager to run Linux inside Call of Duty? People who need to run their website off a 3DS? Most piracy users are dumb kids but it does not mean all people in the scene are. You only need one person to exploit the system and then the whole world can just copy the method. >Remove the necessity of an exploit for running the interesting use cases (even an "Hardware will be opened up after 1 year of sales" promise as suggested), and suddenly the actually talented people are doing more interesting things than trying to assault your security model. Why should anyone believe this? Do you have anything to support this claim? Here is an idea: if you are really running systems with enabled guest accounts as you implied - tell the board where they could be found. I am sure nothing bad is going to happen :)
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
wiz21c 10y ago
I just wanted to emphasize that the console maker, somehow, has to to demonstrate it takes appropriate measures to protect intellectual property. If the lawyers of the game publisher can prove that they are legally forced to use all measures technically available, then they will comply. The fact that there exists other, less or more secure, operating system is not a question here. It's just the relationship between, say, EA FIFA 17 legal team and Microsoft game distribution team.