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

Forums - Sony Discussion - Sony makes yet another major mistake

fordy on 24 February 2011
markers said:
fordy said:
markers said:
fordy said:
markers said:
buglebum said:
markers said:

Uploading it and then publicly admitting it is bad for him


Get a clue bud, uploading and publicly admitting what?

 

His work on exploiting the HV!? He's done nothing wrong, exactly like geohot, but this is even less difficult to defend against ignorant people.

Dude he is an accessory. You need to get a clue. He did something illegal, you know something that is against the law.

Question: Are emulator programmers classed as an accessory to piracy? Think long and hard now, because there have been actual court cases on this issue...


It should be, yes.

 

EDIT: We are talking about console emulators correct?

Key word there is SHOULD (even though I disagree with it)

However, the law is on his side in this one.

Key word is should, yes. But the reason it is should because it all depends on the judge/jury and how informed they are with technology.


There have been several cases towards companies vs emulation, and emulation has won each time. Sounds pretty definite to me.



Around the Network
Ail on 24 February 2011
Parasitic said:
Americant_heroxbox said:

Real hackers comunity says : ''now is pesonal''

 

lol. This image is abit true in a way. These "hackers" do have a community supporting them. The more aggressive Sony gets with their actions, the worse they're gonna it's gonna be on them.

 

The 360 is doing extremely well even with piracy following it around for ages, but Sony just can't seem to accept it. Can't wait to see what happens in the future with all of this. I honestly can't see ending with Sony being satisfied/winning though.

Either way, the ps3 will be fine.

Hackers are not all powerfull.

The issue for them is that the more they try to retaliate the more likely they are going to do something that will actually be easy for Sony to win a court case over.......

Remember the wikileaks ?

And that group of hackers that started to attack every web site of every company that was stopping to support Wikileak ?

Then they decided to try to bring Amazon down ( Amazon was the original web host for wikileak in the US). Well that did not work out so well.. They coudn't do shit to Amazon site and gave up quickly..



PS3-Xbox360 gap : 1.5 millions and going up in PS3 favor !

PS3-Wii gap : 20 millions and going down !

fordy on 24 February 2011
Ail said:
buglebum said:
IMU1808 said:

"And to prove it, i kept my word and uploaded all my HV reversing stuff.


Upload it everywhere so SONY couldn’t remove it easily. Grab it guys, it contains lots of knowledge about HV and HV procs."

Anyone care to defend this confession?


Confession of what?

 

There's nothing wrong with releasing his research on HV exploiting.

 

You do realise the goals of these people is purely to run linux, right or wrong it's hardly a crime.

then why hack ?

Linux was available from day one with the PS3.

Until they decided to use it to hack the console that is..

If you did your research, you'd see it was because the Hypervisor drivers were severely restricting use of the SPUs, to the point that nothing too productive could come out of it.



SqueakySamurai on 24 February 2011

Awesome, the guy shouldn't go to prison but this stuff is making me lol.



fordy on 24 February 2011
Ail said:
buglebum said:
Icyedge said:
buglebum said:
Icyedge said:
 

The point is that its Sony or Microsoft choice to sue an hacker if he release complete or part of their software. If its not doing them any bad they will obviously not sue them (kinect case), this doesnt mean they couldnt if they wanted.

On topic, now the guy is pretty much guilty since he admit releasing the hypervisor code for download.

PS.: May I remind everyone that on PS2 there has been boot disc and mod chip for years without sony sueing anyone.


He's not releasing, or ever going to release "hypervisor code".

It's his code, and his research that he's releasing.

Please do some googling and investigation and you will see this is one of the good guys that has specifically been very careful not to break any laws.


Stop you nonsense bubblegum, its getting ridiculous. When you have tool to reverse engineer or to make custom firmware you have automatically part or full of the original code in it. Its linked together.

"Guys, i don’t joke, it’s serious.
And to prove it, i kept my word and uploaded all my HV reversing stuff."

That isn't true in the slightest, what makes you think that?

The end user downloads the original Sony firmware, the hacker provides the tools to modify that firmware. The hacker provides no copyrighted code.

Even the decryption key that geohot provided isn't copyrighted, since it can be derived by reversing without knowledge of trade secrets. It's questionable if a decryption key can even be copyrighted in the first place from my understanding but I can't be sure of that. Would be curious to know if anyone knows better.

Actually the law around reverse engineering are quite complex.

I know about them because I deal with them on a professional level.

I'm not sure about hardware but on the software level for example it's quite complex.

Lets say you want to make an application that reads excel files. It is not legal to purchase a copy of excel and use it to reverse engineer how excel saves its files...

What you can do it get public available excel files and try to understand what those files contain. But at a business level it is illegal if the developer doing the reverse engineering  has access to the application he is targeting.

What most companies do to get around this is they subcontract that work and the contractor asks for the original company  to create a bunch of excel files with specifics characteristics and then to provide those to him ( and that is legal).

I'm not aware of any company every trying to apply those rules to non company entities, but they are there........

I guess following those rules you could argue those hackers ran the original Sony software to see how it works so that they could change it's behavior through a mod, and technically that's a grey area ( but like I said I'm not aware of anyone ever suing anyone except a business over something like this..)


It all depends on the method of reverse engineering used

If they bought Excel to create spreadsheets with set data, and then try to determine the layout by reading the contents of the XLS file, then that's perfectly legal. If little to no information is given on the product, that is the main process that reverse engineering takes (much like the Hypervisor drivers).



Around the Network
Ail on 24 February 2011
Ail said:
buglebum said:
Icyedge said:
buglebum said:
Icyedge said:
 

The point is that its Sony or Microsoft choice to sue an hacker if he release complete or part of their software. If its not doing them any bad they will obviously not sue them (kinect case), this doesnt mean they couldnt if they wanted.

On topic, now the guy is pretty much guilty since he admit releasing the hypervisor code for download.

PS.: May I remind everyone that on PS2 there has been boot disc and mod chip for years without sony sueing anyone.


He's not releasing, or ever going to release "hypervisor code".

It's his code, and his research that he's releasing.

Please do some googling and investigation and you will see this is one of the good guys that has specifically been very careful not to break any laws.


Stop you nonsense bubblegum, its getting ridiculous. When you have tool to reverse engineer or to make custom firmware you have automatically part or full of the original code in it. Its linked together.

"Guys, i don’t joke, it’s serious.
And to prove it, i kept my word and uploaded all my HV reversing stuff."

That isn't true in the slightest, what makes you think that?

The end user downloads the original Sony firmware, the hacker provides the tools to modify that firmware. The hacker provides no copyrighted code.

Even the decryption key that geohot provided isn't copyrighted, since it can be derived by reversing without knowledge of trade secrets. It's questionable if a decryption key can even be copyrighted in the first place from my understanding but I can't be sure of that. Would be curious to know if anyone knows better.

Actually the law around reverse engineering are quite complex.

I know about them because I deal with them on a professional level.

I'm not sure about hardware but on the software level for example it's quite complex.

Lets say you want to make an application that reads excel files. It is not legal to purchase a copy of excel and use it to reverse engineer how excel saves its files...

What you can do it get public available excel files and try to understand what those files contain. But at a business level it is illegal if the developer doing the reverse engineering  has access to the application he is targeting.

What most companies do to get around this is they subcontract that work and the contractor asks for the original company  to create a bunch of excel files with specifics characteristics and then to provide those to him ( and that is legal).

I'm not aware of any company every trying to apply those rules to non company entities, but they are there........

I guess following those rules you could argue those hackers ran the original Sony software to see how it works so that they could change it's behavior through a mod, and technically that's a grey area ( but like I said I'm not aware of anyone ever suing anyone except a business over something like this..)


The real thing to determine if making an emulator is legal or not whether those doing it followed a 'clean room' approach or not. My guess is most of those hackers did not.....

For those wanting more information about clean, room here it is :

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

PS : the current issue between Sony and Geo Hotz has however nothing to do with emulators.......



PS3-Xbox360 gap : 1.5 millions and going up in PS3 favor !

PS3-Wii gap : 20 millions and going down !

Ail on 24 February 2011
fordy said:
Ail said:
buglebum said:
Icyedge said:
buglebum said:
Icyedge said:
 

The point is that its Sony or Microsoft choice to sue an hacker if he release complete or part of their software. If its not doing them any bad they will obviously not sue them (kinect case), this doesnt mean they couldnt if they wanted.

On topic, now the guy is pretty much guilty since he admit releasing the hypervisor code for download.

PS.: May I remind everyone that on PS2 there has been boot disc and mod chip for years without sony sueing anyone.


He's not releasing, or ever going to release "hypervisor code".

It's his code, and his research that he's releasing.

Please do some googling and investigation and you will see this is one of the good guys that has specifically been very careful not to break any laws.


Stop you nonsense bubblegum, its getting ridiculous. When you have tool to reverse engineer or to make custom firmware you have automatically part or full of the original code in it. Its linked together.

"Guys, i don’t joke, it’s serious.
And to prove it, i kept my word and uploaded all my HV reversing stuff."

That isn't true in the slightest, what makes you think that?

The end user downloads the original Sony firmware, the hacker provides the tools to modify that firmware. The hacker provides no copyrighted code.

Even the decryption key that geohot provided isn't copyrighted, since it can be derived by reversing without knowledge of trade secrets. It's questionable if a decryption key can even be copyrighted in the first place from my understanding but I can't be sure of that. Would be curious to know if anyone knows better.

Actually the law around reverse engineering are quite complex.

I know about them because I deal with them on a professional level.

I'm not sure about hardware but on the software level for example it's quite complex.

Lets say you want to make an application that reads excel files. It is not legal to purchase a copy of excel and use it to reverse engineer how excel saves its files...

What you can do it get public available excel files and try to understand what those files contain. But at a business level it is illegal if the developer doing the reverse engineering  has access to the application he is targeting.

What most companies do to get around this is they subcontract that work and the contractor asks for the original company  to create a bunch of excel files with specifics characteristics and then to provide those to him ( and that is legal).

I'm not aware of any company every trying to apply those rules to non company entities, but they are there........

I guess following those rules you could argue those hackers ran the original Sony software to see how it works so that they could change it's behavior through a mod, and technically that's a grey area ( but like I said I'm not aware of anyone ever suing anyone except a business over something like this..)


It all depends on the method of reverse engineering used

If they bought Excel to create spreadsheets with set data, and then try to determine the layout by reading the contents of the XLS file, then that's perfectly legal. If little to no information is given on the product, that is the main process that reverse engineering takes (much like the Hypervisor drivers).


Except it is safer and better  to use a chinese wall approach where the person creating the excel sheets and the one doing the reverse engineering are not the same.

The issue is that when working with hardware such an approach is a lot harder if not impossible ( which is why connectix won against Sony in appeal 10 years ago...)



PS3-Xbox360 gap : 1.5 millions and going up in PS3 favor !

PS3-Wii gap : 20 millions and going down !

fordy on 24 February 2011
Ail said:
fordy said:
Ail said:
buglebum said:
Icyedge said:
buglebum said:
Icyedge said:
 

The point is that its Sony or Microsoft choice to sue an hacker if he release complete or part of their software. If its not doing them any bad they will obviously not sue them (kinect case), this doesnt mean they couldnt if they wanted.

On topic, now the guy is pretty much guilty since he admit releasing the hypervisor code for download.

PS.: May I remind everyone that on PS2 there has been boot disc and mod chip for years without sony sueing anyone.


He's not releasing, or ever going to release "hypervisor code".

It's his code, and his research that he's releasing.

Please do some googling and investigation and you will see this is one of the good guys that has specifically been very careful not to break any laws.


Stop you nonsense bubblegum, its getting ridiculous. When you have tool to reverse engineer or to make custom firmware you have automatically part or full of the original code in it. Its linked together.

"Guys, i don’t joke, it’s serious.
And to prove it, i kept my word and uploaded all my HV reversing stuff."

That isn't true in the slightest, what makes you think that?

The end user downloads the original Sony firmware, the hacker provides the tools to modify that firmware. The hacker provides no copyrighted code.

Even the decryption key that geohot provided isn't copyrighted, since it can be derived by reversing without knowledge of trade secrets. It's questionable if a decryption key can even be copyrighted in the first place from my understanding but I can't be sure of that. Would be curious to know if anyone knows better.

Actually the law around reverse engineering are quite complex.

I know about them because I deal with them on a professional level.

I'm not sure about hardware but on the software level for example it's quite complex.

Lets say you want to make an application that reads excel files. It is not legal to purchase a copy of excel and use it to reverse engineer how excel saves its files...

What you can do it get public available excel files and try to understand what those files contain. But at a business level it is illegal if the developer doing the reverse engineering  has access to the application he is targeting.

What most companies do to get around this is they subcontract that work and the contractor asks for the original company  to create a bunch of excel files with specifics characteristics and then to provide those to him ( and that is legal).

I'm not aware of any company every trying to apply those rules to non company entities, but they are there........

I guess following those rules you could argue those hackers ran the original Sony software to see how it works so that they could change it's behavior through a mod, and technically that's a grey area ( but like I said I'm not aware of anyone ever suing anyone except a business over something like this..)


It all depends on the method of reverse engineering used

If they bought Excel to create spreadsheets with set data, and then try to determine the layout by reading the contents of the XLS file, then that's perfectly legal. If little to no information is given on the product, that is the main process that reverse engineering takes (much like the Hypervisor drivers).


Except it is safer and better  to use a chinese wall approach where the person creating the excel sheets and the one doing the reverse engineering are not the same.

The issue is that when working with hardware such an approach is a lot harder if not impossible ( which is why connectix won against Sony in appeal 10 years ago...)


Outline the points where this is safer.

If anything, it's counter-productive, because Chinese wall paves the way for Chinese whispers (loss of critical information between nodes).



Ail on 24 February 2011
fordy said:
Ail said:
fordy said:
Ail said:
buglebum said:
Icyedge said:
buglebum said:
Icyedge said:
 

The point is that its Sony or Microsoft choice to sue an hacker if he release complete or part of their software. If its not doing them any bad they will obviously not sue them (kinect case), this doesnt mean they couldnt if they wanted.

On topic, now the guy is pretty much guilty since he admit releasing the hypervisor code for download.

PS.: May I remind everyone that on PS2 there has been boot disc and mod chip for years without sony sueing anyone.


He's not releasing, or ever going to release "hypervisor code".

It's his code, and his research that he's releasing.

Please do some googling and investigation and you will see this is one of the good guys that has specifically been very careful not to break any laws.


Stop you nonsense bubblegum, its getting ridiculous. When you have tool to reverse engineer or to make custom firmware you have automatically part or full of the original code in it. Its linked together.

"Guys, i don’t joke, it’s serious.
And to prove it, i kept my word and uploaded all my HV reversing stuff."

That isn't true in the slightest, what makes you think that?

The end user downloads the original Sony firmware, the hacker provides the tools to modify that firmware. The hacker provides no copyrighted code.

Even the decryption key that geohot provided isn't copyrighted, since it can be derived by reversing without knowledge of trade secrets. It's questionable if a decryption key can even be copyrighted in the first place from my understanding but I can't be sure of that. Would be curious to know if anyone knows better.

Actually the law around reverse engineering are quite complex.

I know about them because I deal with them on a professional level.

I'm not sure about hardware but on the software level for example it's quite complex.

Lets say you want to make an application that reads excel files. It is not legal to purchase a copy of excel and use it to reverse engineer how excel saves its files...

What you can do it get public available excel files and try to understand what those files contain. But at a business level it is illegal if the developer doing the reverse engineering  has access to the application he is targeting.

What most companies do to get around this is they subcontract that work and the contractor asks for the original company  to create a bunch of excel files with specifics characteristics and then to provide those to him ( and that is legal).

I'm not aware of any company every trying to apply those rules to non company entities, but they are there........

I guess following those rules you could argue those hackers ran the original Sony software to see how it works so that they could change it's behavior through a mod, and technically that's a grey area ( but like I said I'm not aware of anyone ever suing anyone except a business over something like this..)


It all depends on the method of reverse engineering used

If they bought Excel to create spreadsheets with set data, and then try to determine the layout by reading the contents of the XLS file, then that's perfectly legal. If little to no information is given on the product, that is the main process that reverse engineering takes (much like the Hypervisor drivers).


Except it is safer and better  to use a chinese wall approach where the person creating the excel sheets and the one doing the reverse engineering are not the same.

The issue is that when working with hardware such an approach is a lot harder if not impossible ( which is why connectix won against Sony in appeal 10 years ago...)


Outline the points where this is safer.

If anything, it's counter-productive, because Chinese wall paves the way for Chinese whispers (loss of critical information between nodes).

if you work in a software company and do reverse engineering, ( which I have done), lawyers will automatically recommand you to follow a chinese wall approach. 

It is just safer from a legal point of view. There are 0 risks of legal issues in that case. If you do not , you probably would still win the legal case if one was brought against you but it could take a while, incurs legal cost, delay releases and generally get bad press ( especially as a software company).

If your customers are business too this can even lead to loss of business as some company ( IBM is one example) have very strict rules about the content of the software they resell...( if there is the slightest risk of copyright infringment, IBM will refuse to act as a reseller for your software).



PS3-Xbox360 gap : 1.5 millions and going up in PS3 favor !

PS3-Wii gap : 20 millions and going down !

fordy on 24 February 2011
Ail said:
fordy said:
Ail said:
fordy said:
Ail said:
buglebum said:
Icyedge said:
buglebum said:
Icyedge said:
 

The point is that its Sony or Microsoft choice to sue an hacker if he release complete or part of their software. If its not doing them any bad they will obviously not sue them (kinect case), this doesnt mean they couldnt if they wanted.

On topic, now the guy is pretty much guilty since he admit releasing the hypervisor code for download.

PS.: May I remind everyone that on PS2 there has been boot disc and mod chip for years without sony sueing anyone.


He's not releasing, or ever going to release "hypervisor code".

It's his code, and his research that he's releasing.

Please do some googling and investigation and you will see this is one of the good guys that has specifically been very careful not to break any laws.


Stop you nonsense bubblegum, its getting ridiculous. When you have tool to reverse engineer or to make custom firmware you have automatically part or full of the original code in it. Its linked together.

"Guys, i don’t joke, it’s serious.
And to prove it, i kept my word and uploaded all my HV reversing stuff."

That isn't true in the slightest, what makes you think that?

The end user downloads the original Sony firmware, the hacker provides the tools to modify that firmware. The hacker provides no copyrighted code.

Even the decryption key that geohot provided isn't copyrighted, since it can be derived by reversing without knowledge of trade secrets. It's questionable if a decryption key can even be copyrighted in the first place from my understanding but I can't be sure of that. Would be curious to know if anyone knows better.

Actually the law around reverse engineering are quite complex.

I know about them because I deal with them on a professional level.

I'm not sure about hardware but on the software level for example it's quite complex.

Lets say you want to make an application that reads excel files. It is not legal to purchase a copy of excel and use it to reverse engineer how excel saves its files...

What you can do it get public available excel files and try to understand what those files contain. But at a business level it is illegal if the developer doing the reverse engineering  has access to the application he is targeting.

What most companies do to get around this is they subcontract that work and the contractor asks for the original company  to create a bunch of excel files with specifics characteristics and then to provide those to him ( and that is legal).

I'm not aware of any company every trying to apply those rules to non company entities, but they are there........

I guess following those rules you could argue those hackers ran the original Sony software to see how it works so that they could change it's behavior through a mod, and technically that's a grey area ( but like I said I'm not aware of anyone ever suing anyone except a business over something like this..)


It all depends on the method of reverse engineering used

If they bought Excel to create spreadsheets with set data, and then try to determine the layout by reading the contents of the XLS file, then that's perfectly legal. If little to no information is given on the product, that is the main process that reverse engineering takes (much like the Hypervisor drivers).


Except it is safer and better  to use a chinese wall approach where the person creating the excel sheets and the one doing the reverse engineering are not the same.

The issue is that when working with hardware such an approach is a lot harder if not impossible ( which is why connectix won against Sony in appeal 10 years ago...)


Outline the points where this is safer.

If anything, it's counter-productive, because Chinese wall paves the way for Chinese whispers (loss of critical information between nodes).

if you work in a software company and do reverse engineering, ( which I have done), lawyers will automatically recommand you to follow a chinese wall approach. 

It is just safer from a legal point of view. There are 0 risks of legal issues in that case. If you do not , you probably would still win the legal case if one was brought against you but it could take a while, incurs legal cost, delay releases and generally get bad press ( especially as a software company).

If your customers are business too this can even lead to loss of business as some company ( IBM is one example) have very strict rules about the content of the software they resell...

I do and yes I do plenty of reverse engineering, both as work and as a hobby. Sounds to me like you're trying to justify your stance using the ethos mode of persuasion.

Now once again, it depends on the method of reverse engineering used. The method that you stated involes one side actually disassembling the compiled code to see it's inner workings. This need not apply to black box reverse engineering, where no interaction is done with the code at all, merely the inputs and derived outputs.