joeorc said:
bowspearer said:
papflesje said:
I'll ask again: could it be that Sony is not in trouble because OtherOS has not been eliminated from consoles, but that access is merely blocked. Technically, they could say in court that the feature is still there, just not accessible until Sony can figure out a way to stop hacking. I doubt they won't be able to postpone any judgment that way until they fix their problem. |
Replied to the first time this came up but it did not seem to add for some reason. The answer is a flat out yes. The problem with it being there but inaccessible is that according to consumer protection laws, if you buy a product which the manufacturer claims is capable of performing certain functions or tasks and a person buys it with the intention of performing said functions and tasks, then the consumer must be able to perform said functions or tasks with said device. Even if the function is still present; while the consumer is unable to use said function on said product, consumer protection laws have still been broken. EULAs and T&Cs do not override those laws, but rather the very opposite- consumer protection laws override any T&C or EULA which contains terms which breach those laws. It's literally that black and white.
This is something those defending Sony either cannot comprehend, or simply do not want to comprehend.
|
also on the same token the consumer protection law's also can be used to show that Sony is doing just that. protecting the consumer's hardware from remote hack's!
Sony would also be liable if they did nothing to prevent further attack's.
this is about they removed the function of install other OS out of the xmb to prevent further security breaches across PSN, not the removal of Linux in of it's self.
because
the consumer does not OWN the right's to the Xmb. Sony can and will update the security of the xmb just like any software company.
you and other's may say there is no way that a remote hack can happen, but as was shown even with the protection's in place the PS3's security was Breached by a "Consumer" when the Term's of service state's and which that consumer agreed to not to try to bypass the security and protection's of the PS3 OR PSN anyone that uses the CFW on the ps3 to gain access to PSN with a PS3 that still has Linux installed will be breaking that term's of service Sony removed the security threat of a linux enabled PS3 to PSN, thus Sony took what ever step's that they can to prevent remote hacking attempt's.
if sony did nothing Sony could be Liable by not doing anything they may be liable for:
NEGLIGENCE
The failure to use reasonable care. The doing of something which a reasonably prudent person would not do, or the failure to do something which a reasonably prudent person would do under like circumstances. A departure from what an ordinary reasonable member of the community would do in the same community.
example:
Sony would have to prove Prudence in this, which they have so
if Sony can prove within reason that such a hack could be done remotely across their network, then it can be shown that Sony is protecting the consumer's that own the PS3 from external hack's.
example:
this firm:
Root Labs offers design and review services for embedded and kernel security, crypto, and software protection.
what solution did they give to use as a countermeasure
it remains to be seen what security measures Sony has taken to address a hypervisor compromise. One countermeasure would be to lock down the OtherOS environment, since the attack depends on the ability to manipulate low-level OS memory structures. They could be using a simpler hypervisor than the GameOS side (say, one that just prevents access to the GPU). Perhaps the SPEs have a disable bit that turns off the hardware decryption unit, and the hypervisor does this before booting OtherOS.
while I do not like the fact that Sony had to remove the Other OS install function from the XMB of the PS3 they did it for a security reason and the
magistrate will most likely see it that way.
If it can be shown that the company which make's the product is in prudence to protecting the Consumer's who purchased their product, than that company can reasonably be viewed IN COMPLIANCE and would not be culpable.
|
