joeorc, my thinking is that I bought the PS3 because it played games (something that is not at Sony's discretion like my access to PSN) and becuse I could install Linux if I wanted to (i never have). Once a game comes out that requires 3.21 then I've been harmed. *shrug*

Geohot's hack is not really a hack. As far as I can tell it won't allow anything to be done until they figure out how to use it to access to encrypted part of the drive with firmware (new systems) or access the firmware in eeprom (old systems) and who knows if that will happen any time soon. I do understand why Sony did what they did, so you don't need to explain it to me. I simply don't agree with it. That would be like recalling the new Camaro to cut its horsepower in half and refusing to perform any warranty work on cars that aren't de-powered because a few drivers caused accidents.

the point is I think many are overlooking once again, is

when Geohot started his little hacking experiment, what did he have to do in order to break any security of the PS3?

Geohot : He had to use a:

Mod Chip! to do it!

the fact that he could have not been able to break the part of the security with out it. thus no software use by itself. has been able to do it thus far with out doing what he did. which bring's us back to the core issue. He used a Mod Chip to break the system's security and encryption through the use of a Mod Chip. He in fact broke the term's of service, that he agreed too on PSN.

section : V

"use any unauthorised hardware or software to access or use PSN or make, or distribute unauthorised software or hardware in conjunction with PSN (including but not limited to cheat code software or devices that circumvent any security features or limitations included on any software or devices);"

you cannot tell me Geohot  has not already Accessed PSN with a Mod Chipped PS3!

now not only the above:

Geohot also did this :

section's 8 and 9 and 16

# bypass or attempt to bypass any user authentication systems or security feature;
# attempt to hack or reverse engineer any code or equipment in connection with PSN (unless permitted by applicable law)
# engage in any activity to gain access to or interfere with any unauthorised account, system, hardware, software, or network connected to PSN;

Mod chipped PS3's are by their very nature UNauthorised hardware


what Sony and

I think many of you do not want is Mod Chip'ed playstation 3's being used on PSN

because that's exactly what the start of Geohot's Hack was for. He can deny it all he want's but it's the truth in my opinion.

yes it is, he used a chip mounted onto the PS3's motherboard to bypass the security and encryption, that is the very definition of a hack.

and it still can play game's even new one's but , due to Hacker's breaching a part of the PS3 that they should not have done in the first place Sony took action in a Deterrent, in stopping it's use. you can hack all you want but Since geohot and other's now want to do CFW's they are by the very definition of try ing to now bypass the PSN security.

that's the problem, Geohot think's the rule's do not apply to him, he did what he wanted He even knew what this could be used for and again he decided to release it anyway.

just because it's still early in the hack does not mean that you should wait before it get's worse. this is mainly about keeping mod chipped PS3's off of the PSN.

there are already Mod chipped PSP's So

slowing down the hacking attempt's is pretty much the only thing they could have done.

some may say this will increase Hacking attempt's, but not many are willing to open up their PS3 to do it.

Some may Say CFW's would not need this hack, maybe maybe not we don't know but I guess geohot is working on it  we will see i guess.

I have all the respect for Geohot's talent's. I am starting to have no respect for Him though.

for ME I hope he fail's. Not because I would not want Linux back for myself an other's , which I would.

no I hope He fail's because of his attitude that rule's do not apply to him. The very fact that He had an open source OS on his system and yet he wanted to break the security and encryption of the PS3 in order to play back up's just show's that He cares only about himself.

oh another quick note for my adoring followers. those of us who purchased a ps3 "phat" did not purchase a video game system. we bought a computer. at least according to sony. see when they first introduced the product to market it was expressly labeled as a computer to avoid the increased tax placed on video game systems. the validation for this was....any guesses...the ability to install another os which pushed it beyond just a video game system. it is labeled as such in their own fcc and sec filings. so for those of u saying oh just buy a computer I DID. also by removing other os they are again violating anti competition laws. just ask microsoft. by removing this feature they are limiting me from using alternate web browsers and media players on my "computer system". this was case just recently lost by microsoft for trying to prevent web browsers other than internet explorer form being bundled with windows and therefore limiting the ability opf competitor's to obtain market share. guess what sony is doing the same thing.

This case has no legal standing what so ever. I have read the same argument presented in the UK and it is just as flawed. If I remember correctly the slim does not contain other OS support by default, which changes the specfications of the product. Secondly the update is optional, so if you want to keep your other OS support then don't update and buy another PS3.

that does not work anymore even since the PS2 look it up.

See: The Sony ruling

you could make the argument that the PS3 is in fact :

http://hicksdesign.co.uk/journal/playstation-3-media-centre

but you can have a consumer electronic be a media center without being a PC.

the playstation platform's have been ruled a game console.

The slim is a different product. We're all obviously talking about the phat. You can't consider them the same, just like an '85 Corvette is very different from a '94 Corvette or even 87' Corvette, but they're both Corvettes. Slim and phat are both PS3s, but we're not talking about the slim. They were advertised differently, the slim never came with an advertisement of the Other OS option.

also:

The hack has limited impact right now, but is an opening in the security of the PS3. If that opening was widened it could eventually lead to compromised PS3s on the PSN. As any IT security person worth their pay-check will tell you, that is a beach-head for breaking PSN. So, Sony decided to protect PSN because PSN contains financial transactions and financial information along with the personal information of PSN customers. It's a precaution, and a wise one. Can you imagine the financial liability Sony would face if they did not plug this potential hole and further down the line someone used it to exploit PSN and steal CC numbers? If you want to talk about a class action suit, that would be one.

and also:

 the problem is that a hack in OtherOS mode gives a point of entry for attempts to hack GameOS.

If GameOS is successfully hacked then the PSN is next.

Since OtherOS is the vector (way in) for the current hack, and likely is the vector for future hacks, preventing PS3s with OtherOS capability from interacting with PSN is a sensible precaution to take.

once again I do think it's a raw deal but One I think was reasonable, Look I do not like it as much as you do, but I understand why they did it an for the reason's they did it.If anything Geohot deserves a swift kick in the junk for causing all this trouble.

I'm looking at my brothers 60GB right now. The only thing currently missing from his system feature wise is the other OS feature. You are comparing apples to oranges. I didn't use Other OS my PS3, neither did my brother. I don't like the precedent this "update" sets. I can't believe how short sighted PS3 owners are being with this. What happens when they take out something you do use?

the precendent it set's is you still get to choose!

can you refuse to update?

yes or no?

the point being Geohot decided the security and encryption of the PS3 was somthing that should be shared with everyone!

I do not know how anyone could expect Sony not to protect PSN. this is a way to do it a strong one at that.

once again:

also:

The hack has limited impact right now, but is an opening in the security of the PS3. If that opening was widened it could eventually lead to compromised PS3s on the PSN. As any IT security person worth their pay-check will tell you, that is a beach-head for breaking PSN. So, Sony decided to protect PSN because PSN contains financial transactions and financial information along with the personal information of PSN customers. It's a precaution, and a wise one. Can you imagine the financial liability Sony would face if they did not plug this potential hole and further down the line someone used it to exploit PSN and steal CC numbers? If you want to talk about a class action suit, that would be one.

and also:

 the problem is that a hack in OtherOS mode gives a point of entry for attempts to hack GameOS.

If GameOS is successfully hacked then the PSN is next.

Since OtherOS is the vector (way in) for the current hack, and likely is the vector for future hacks, preventing PS3s with OtherOS capability from interacting with PSN is a sensible precaution to take.

once again I do think it's a raw deal but One I think was reasonable, Look I do not like it as much as you do, but I understand why they did it an for the reason's they did it.If anything Geohot deserves a swift kick in the junk for causing all this trouble.

so

you may think that removing Other OS would not have been a security liability, well it may not have been before Geohots hack, but after that may not have been the case. I for one think it's a crappy deal, but I also think that most judges would agree with the step's that Sony took to protect themselves and consumer's.

besides Installing an Other OS was an option not a requirement for the PS3. option's can and will sometime's be removed .

but in this case. the consumer get's to choose if they want to do it or not.

it would be one thing is Sony outright did it without consumer's consent, but they are not so that's a very big problem in saying that's it being removed outright.

Because it's not.