By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - PS3 Hacker Raised All the Legal Funds Needed to Beat Sony in a Weekend

Spankey said:
fordy said:
Spankey said:
fordy said:
Spankey said:
 


UPCs and ISBNs are examples of numbers (or integers) which have been generated, distributed, and are protected against misuse, are they not? you claimed that no number could be afforded protection, obviously you were mistaken.

What the hell are you talking about? Just because a book has ISBN 12345, that doesnt mean I cannot use the number 12345 in any other application. That is a completely stupid and retarded stance!


you are not reading what i'm writing.

you are not ISBN. You cannot claim you're ISBN and in a position to distribute ISBN numbers unless you are. Anything you distribute as having come from ISBN when it has not is wrong.

hopefully that's clear enough.

Yes, but I am allowed to cite an ISBN, just like any bookstore does, and just like GeoHot did to sign files.

He did not MAKE a key. He cited one. It's NOT illegal to cite an ISBN!

but you see, he cited one which can be attached to homebrew apps which are not developed, suported or distributed by Sony.

Putting a DKNY badge on a wallet does not make it automatically a wallet made by DKNY if you see what I'm getting at.

 

Except the only boundaries are whether the PS3 accepts it or not. Code signing is a simple mathematical equation if you CITE the number. Besdes your argument is flawed because Sony use the same key for everything, whereas ISBNs and UPCs require one code per product.

And for the record, there is talk about replacing the ISBNs with GUIDs, effectively dissolving the foundation to no more than just a checker for doubleups, so your argument doesn't hold up there, either.



Around the Network
fordy said:
Spankey said:

but you see, he cited one which can be attached to homebrew apps which are not developed, suported or distributed by Sony.

Putting a DKNY badge on a wallet does not make it automatically a wallet made by DKNY if you see what I'm getting at.

 

Except the only boundaries are whether the PS3 accepts it or not. Code signing is a simple mathematical equation if you CITE the number. Besdes your argument is flawed because Sony use the same key for everything, whereas ISBNs and UPCs require one code per product.

And for the record, there is talk about replacing the ISBNs with GUIDs, effectively dissolving the foundation to no more than just a checker for doubleups, so your argument doesn't hold up there, either.


you still don't get my point.

so what if Sony uses the same key to sign every piece of software they autherise?

The point is that GeoHot is not Sony and should have no right to sign something as coming from Sony when he is not Sony. he's flogging fake Sony goods to the PS3 and has told others how to do the same.

GUID is just another number generated and distributed by a protected system. Just like ISBN. There is or will be a controlling body who will assign the numbers. The same will hold true, you won't be allowed to generate a number privately and then claim it came from them, so i don't see how that's too different at all.



Proud Sony Rear Admiral

Spankey said:
fordy said:
Spankey said:
 

but you see, he cited one which can be attached to homebrew apps which are not developed, suported or distributed by Sony.

Putting a DKNY badge on a wallet does not make it automatically a wallet made by DKNY if you see what I'm getting at.

 

Except the only boundaries are whether the PS3 accepts it or not. Code signing is a simple mathematical equation if you CITE the number. Besdes your argument is flawed because Sony use the same key for everything, whereas ISBNs and UPCs require one code per product.

And for the record, there is talk about replacing the ISBNs with GUIDs, effectively dissolving the foundation to no more than just a checker for doubleups, so your argument doesn't hold up there, either.


you still don't get my point.

so what if Sony uses the same key to sign every piece of software they autherise?

The point is that GeoHot is not Sony and should have no right to sign something as coming from Sony when he is not Sony. he's flogging fake Sony goods to the PS3 and has told others how to do the same.

GUID is just another number generated and distributed by a protected system. Just like ISBN. There is or will be a controlling body who will assign the numbers. The same will hold true, you won't be allowed to generate a number privately and then claim it came from them, so i don't see how that's too different at all.

 

Okay, let's assume your vague assumption has any chance of standing in court. In that case:

1. there would have to be a governing body who monitors security keys by corporations. Not only is it not in the corporations interest to be giving them out, it's not the government's interest to be providing backup for stolen keys from corporations.

2. Sony would have had to have registered their key with that body.

3. No two companies would be allowed to have the same key.

4. The code signing system would only be allowed to accept numbers registered with this governing body.

The similarity is way too vague for any enforcement, and the idea of enforcement requires ludicrous rues to be put in place.

Sony cannot just declare by themselves "this is our number, and anything published with it shall be ours" to thin air and expect it to hold up in court. Get real.

And yes, GUIDs can be generated from any point using a corporate IP address. The governing body no longer would need to "issue" them.



Ail said:
thranx said:
Ail said:
thranx said:
Ail said:
fordy said:
KylieDog said:
fordy said:
Ail said:
fordy said:
Ail said:

I wonder if you guys would feel the same if the dude had posted a way to hack visa card transactions...

You're missing the point, since all hardware that makes those transactions IS owned by Visa, whereas a sold PS3 does not belong to Sony. It belongs to the consumer.


Visa owns my credit card ?

That's new to me... They may own the devices that read those cards but in most civilized countries ( except the US that are very backwards in that area) credit cards actually have chips and software on them...

These is what I am talking about :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_card

Yes. Read the terms and conditions when applying. All credit cards remain the property of the credit card company.

Sony have their own TnC's about the PS3 and its security...

Sony have an EULA. The difference there is that a ToC requires a signature, and can be held up in court, whereas an EULA has little to no chance.

Sony are nailed to a wall here. Credit cards are cheap plastic. The PS3 is expensive electronics. If Sony gave the PS3 away for free, I wouldn't complain at all about whether they own it or not. However, to say that you pay upwards of $599 and NOT own your console is absurd.

I paid over 300k for my house and I can't paint it the color I want and I won't sue anyone over this.....

Really? I would be pissed. Did you buy  a house as part of a housing gated community that had pre set rules or something.


Nope.

there is a HoA but it's not a gated community, just a standard suburb and I understand the rules. if everyone does what they feel like, it's anarchy, which is exactly what happens in online games with cheaters...

 

You guys need to grow up and live in the real world.

Your are free to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't affect others.

Turns our it might be your liberty, but Geo Hotz is affecting mine too.......

 

And if you don't like the way Sony is handling the PS3. Here's a hint. it's not a necessity item, you can perfectly live without owning one, so I suggest you purchase a console with rules more to your liking...

I didn't realise that painting your house would affect others so much.

If i buy somthing I have every right to do with it what I want.

Gehot did not attack the psn, nor hack to cheat in games or pirate. So how did he affect you again?

I don't own one, I still hope too but ot enough gamin time to justify owning one yet. But this court case goes beyond that. I dopnt need it setting precedents for other companies to do the same.

Perhaps sony should go after the pirates and the people cheating instead of the guy who isn't doing those things.

You have to realize that for houses the view is something that has a monetary value, so anything that you can do that can affect the view people have from their houses is frowned upon and regulated by Home owners associations...

Same way that if you don't mow your lawn for a while or let it die you will be fined...

Some suburbs have rules against having prominent satelite dishes on houses...

Heck do you realize that to make any significant modification to your house you need  a permit, even if it's something that is not visible from the street side...

Try to buy a car and remove the safety belts and see how it goes. It's your car and you can do whatever you want with it right ? Wrong...And removing those belts will not endanger anyone else except you...

It's illegal in Europe to put heating gazoline into diesel car. And it's not because it doesn't work as well, They are the same, heating gaz has just a colorant to make it look different. The reason ? Because one is less taxed than the others so the government doesn't want to loose taxes....

It's not so different with Sony, they don't want you to run apps not coming from them because they don't perceive taxes on those. Seeing how they sold most of their PS3 at a loss, I can understand why.

So a government can do it but not a corporation ?


That is actually a very good example to compare. You can take the seat belts off of your car if you wish (hack the ps3), but you can not drive on the roads if you do so(go onto the psn). So again what did he do wrong? He did not hack the psn, he hacked his own hardware. He did not pirate games, he hacked his own hardware. what is so wrong about using your equiptemnt the way you want? He has not harmed anyone, others have, perhaps sony should try suing them instead



fordy said:
Spankey said:
fordy said:
Spankey said:
 

but you see, he cited one which can be attached to homebrew apps which are not developed, suported or distributed by Sony.

Putting a DKNY badge on a wallet does not make it automatically a wallet made by DKNY if you see what I'm getting at.

 

Except the only boundaries are whether the PS3 accepts it or not. Code signing is a simple mathematical equation if you CITE the number. Besdes your argument is flawed because Sony use the same key for everything, whereas ISBNs and UPCs require one code per product.

And for the record, there is talk about replacing the ISBNs with GUIDs, effectively dissolving the foundation to no more than just a checker for doubleups, so your argument doesn't hold up there, either.


you still don't get my point.

so what if Sony uses the same key to sign every piece of software they autherise?

The point is that GeoHot is not Sony and should have no right to sign something as coming from Sony when he is not Sony. he's flogging fake Sony goods to the PS3 and has told others how to do the same.

GUID is just another number generated and distributed by a protected system. Just like ISBN. There is or will be a controlling body who will assign the numbers. The same will hold true, you won't be allowed to generate a number privately and then claim it came from them, so i don't see how that's too different at all.

 

Okay, let's assume your vague assumption has any chance of standing in court. In that case:

1. there would have to be a governing body who monitors security keys by corporations. Not only is it not in the corporations interest to be giving them out, it's not the government's interest to be providing backup for stolen keys from corporations. No. it's how Sony id's something that theirs and or comes from them or their stable in their own internal system (like a product number). I.E Sony is the governing body here.

2. Sony would have had to have registered their key with that body. see 1

3. No two companies would be allowed to have the same key. Irrelevant. it is unlikely that one legit company would try pass itself or it's software as anothers. remember GeoHots method allows PS3's to run fake software (or homebrew etc.) as if it came from Sony.

4. The code signing system would only be allowed to accept numbers registered with this governing body. This is what Geohot has circumvented in the PS3 hack.

The similarity is way too vague for any enforcement, and the idea of enforcement requires ludicrous rues to be put in place.

Sony cannot just declare by themselves "this is our number, and anything published with it shall be ours" to thin air and expect it to hold up in court. Get real. Who'se keys (numbers) are they supposed to use then to identify and verify their authorised software? Microsofts? What is your view on the use of the MD5 Checksum algorithm? is that wrong too? is circumventing that fine as well?

And yes, GUIDs can be generated from any point using a corporate IP address. The governing body no longer would need to "issue" them. Any issued GUID would have to be checked for uniqueness which will require some form of body despite the frankly huge numbers of permutations that could be generated. someone will need to issue and conrol the identifier protion





Proud Sony Rear Admiral

Around the Network
Spankey said:
fordy said:
Spankey said:
fordy said:
Spankey said:
 

but you see, he cited one which can be attached to homebrew apps which are not developed, suported or distributed by Sony.

Putting a DKNY badge on a wallet does not make it automatically a wallet made by DKNY if you see what I'm getting at.

 

Except the only boundaries are whether the PS3 accepts it or not. Code signing is a simple mathematical equation if you CITE the number. Besdes your argument is flawed because Sony use the same key for everything, whereas ISBNs and UPCs require one code per product.

And for the record, there is talk about replacing the ISBNs with GUIDs, effectively dissolving the foundation to no more than just a checker for doubleups, so your argument doesn't hold up there, either.


you still don't get my point.

so what if Sony uses the same key to sign every piece of software they autherise?

The point is that GeoHot is not Sony and should have no right to sign something as coming from Sony when he is not Sony. he's flogging fake Sony goods to the PS3 and has told others how to do the same.

GUID is just another number generated and distributed by a protected system. Just like ISBN. There is or will be a controlling body who will assign the numbers. The same will hold true, you won't be allowed to generate a number privately and then claim it came from them, so i don't see how that's too different at all.

 

Okay, let's assume your vague assumption has any chance of standing in court. In that case:

1. there would have to be a governing body who monitors security keys by corporations. Not only is it not in the corporations interest to be giving them out, it's not the government's interest to be providing backup for stolen keys from corporations. No. it's how Sony id's something that theirs and or comes from them or their stable in their own internal system (like a product number). I.E Sony is the governing body here.

2. Sony would have had to have registered their key with that body. see 1

3. No two companies would be allowed to have the same key. Irrelevant. it is unlikely that one legit company would try pass itself or it's software as anothers. remember GeoHots method allows PS3's to run fake software (or homebrew etc.) as if it came from Sony.

4. The code signing system would only be allowed to accept numbers registered with this governing body. This is what Geohot has circumvented in the PS3 hack.

The similarity is way too vague for any enforcement, and the idea of enforcement requires ludicrous rues to be put in place.

Sony cannot just declare by themselves "this is our number, and anything published with it shall be ours" to thin air and expect it to hold up in court. Get real. Who'se keys (numbers) are they supposed to use then to identify and verify their authorised software? Microsofts? What is your view on the use of the MD5 Checksum algorithm? is that wrong too? is circumventing that fine as well?

And yes, GUIDs can be generated from any point using a corporate IP address. The governing body no longer would need to "issue" them. Any issued GUID would have to be checked for uniqueness which will require some form of body despite the frankly huge numbers of permutations that could be generated. someone will need to issue and conrol the identifier protion




There is a ton of assumption in all of this:

You're expecting the government court to uphold a system by a corporation that could have been fabricated at any time between the court case and the incident.

The code would not have to be passed amongst companies, but if two keys happen to be the same, two companies can accuse the other of copying their key.

Aso GeoHot did not circumvent ANY code. For gods sake, he used the door put there legitimately by Sony.

 

I have had enough of this stupid, ludicrous analogy. I made an analogy in an "only if" situation and you're trying to argue your way through that. the situation is too vague and you're trying to defend it as much as you can. Unless you actually bring up a decent reason, I refuse to play this little game anymore.



5301314

The number about is copyrighted. Please, don't use without my permission or $99 fee.



fordy said:
Spankey said:




There is a ton of assumption in all of this:

You're expecting the government court to uphold a system by a corporation that could have been fabricated at any time between the court case and the incident. Staw clutching at it's finest. we'll find out soon enough.

The code would not have to be passed amongst companies, but if two keys happen to be the same, two companies can accuse the other of copying their key. You really don't get it, do you?

Aso GeoHot did not circumvent ANY code. For gods sake, he used the door put there legitimately by Sony. He circumvented the security, software verification and authentication measures. This is why homebrew can now pass itself off an Sony's and run on cracked PS3's. there is no denying this. Why are you so blindly stubborn?

I have had enough of this stupid, ludicrous analogy. I made an analogy in an "only if" situation and you're trying to argue your way through that. the situation is too vague and you're trying to defend it as much as you can. Unless you actually bring up a decent reason, I refuse to play this little game anymore. I've stated my position. Toodles.





Proud Sony Rear Admiral

Galaki said:

5301314

The number about is copyrighted. Please, don't use without my permission or $99 fee.


lol



Proud Sony Rear Admiral

Spankey said:
fordy said:
Spankey said:
 




There is a ton of assumption in all of this:

You're expecting the government court to uphold a system by a corporation that could have been fabricated at any time between the court case and the incident. Staw clutching at it's finest. we'll find out soon enough.

The code would not have to be passed amongst companies, but if two keys happen to be the same, two companies can accuse the other of copying their key. You really don't get it, do you?

Aso GeoHot did not circumvent ANY code. For gods sake, he used the door put there legitimately by Sony. He circumvented the security, software verification and authentication measures. This is why homebrew can now pass itself off an Sony's and run on cracked PS3's. there is no denying this. Why are you so blindly stubborn?

I have had enough of this stupid, ludicrous analogy. I made an analogy in an "only if" situation and you're trying to argue your way through that. the situation is too vague and you're trying to defend it as much as you can. Unless you actually bring up a decent reason, I refuse to play this little game anymore. I've stated my position. Toodles.




You've been clutching at straws the moment that you found out that corporate generated security keys do not follow the same rules and legislation as ISBNs and UPCs.

It's easy to say "you don't get it" when you spout nothing but illogical nonsense and defend a position that not even Sony would bother bringing up in court.

For your information, the door is open to anyone, but it wont help you unless you have a signed data file. He played by the rules that Sony themselves programmed into the PS3. He did NOT circumvent security. Circumvention of security involves finding or creating holes that should not be there. This was Sony's port for publishing content.

You honestly don't get digital legislation, do you?