4 ms·

>That's the security through obscurity model though. Not quite. "Security through obscurity" refers to obscurity being the only layer of security. PS3 still ha

>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 :)
  - ethbro 10y ago
    You might want to drop the sarcastic smilies and "ip or it didn't happen" challenges if you're not trying to troll. I told you I felt like a properly implemented OS validation/segregation model on custom hardware wasn't analogous to a guest account in terms of STO. You evidently feel differently, but haven't offered your reasoning. I'd be interested to hear it if you disagree that strongly. As for piracy, the majority of the dongles, modchips, flashcarts, etc I've seen tend to be "take an existing POC exploit, package it up, put a logo and snazzy name on it, and try to make a quick buck off of someone else's work." See: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C4lJEOEd-_g&t=1m42s https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C4lJEOEd-_g&t=1m42s . That seems like a biased presentation, but statistically speaking I feel like "most of those who can technically originate hacks have better things to do with their time than enable game piracy" is a pretty strong statement. Sure some will focus on that, and kudos to them for pursuing their dream. But if you enable interesting use cases by default then there are that many fewer people trying to break the security system to do something that could have been allowed in the first place. Admittedly, I could be off base, so I'd be interested in any numbers or links you can offer in terms of piracy-first groups pioneering console hacks.

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 :)
- ethbro 10y ago
  You might want to drop the sarcastic smilies and "ip or it didn't happen" challenges if you're not trying to troll. I told you I felt like a properly implemented OS validation/segregation model on custom hardware wasn't analogous to a guest account in terms of STO. You evidently feel differently, but haven't offered your reasoning. I'd be interested to hear it if you disagree that strongly. As for piracy, the majority of the dongles, modchips, flashcarts, etc I've seen tend to be "take an existing POC exploit, package it up, put a logo and snazzy name on it, and try to make a quick buck off of someone else's work." See: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C4lJEOEd-_g&t=1m42s https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C4lJEOEd-_g&t=1m42s . That seems like a biased presentation, but statistically speaking I feel like "most of those who can technically originate hacks have better things to do with their time than enable game piracy" is a pretty strong statement. Sure some will focus on that, and kudos to them for pursuing their dream. But if you enable interesting use cases by default then there are that many fewer people trying to break the security system to do something that could have been allowed in the first place. Admittedly, I could be off base, so I'd be interested in any numbers or links you can offer in terms of piracy-first groups pioneering console hacks.