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

Forums - Sony - Sony Gets Other OS Class-Action Lawsuite Dismissed

Icyedge on 14 December 2011
Darc Requiem said:
Icyedge said:
fordy said:
Icyedge said:
fordy said:
Icyedge said:


Hence the removal of PSN, not "other OS". PSN is a separate agreement, they can legally close, refrain or ban anyone at any time. That was the point of the judge.

Exactly! Sony have every right to ban you from THEIR service, so this whole crap about sacrificing personal property freedoms for the protection of cheating is pure bullshit.

Its not about removing "other OS", its about removing PSN to people who want to keep "other OS". Which like you just said, is rightful. Sony can apply any rules they want for people to access their PSN service, in this case, the removal of "other OS". Read the judge's conclusion once again.

Ahh, but let me ask you this. Do some off-the-shelf games require updates to the firmware AFTER the OtherOS removal branch? If so, you've also effectively disabled the PS3 as a game console, not just PSN..

Like I said on page 3, either the judge missed that point, or nobody have concrete proof of that. Ill give benefit of doubt to the judge :). That being said, if it can be proved that new games have on disc mandatory installation that requires you to remove "other OS" the petitioners should go into appeal. In any case, the issue is being extremely exagerated ;).

Starting with Red Dead Redemption games required a updated firmware that did not feature Other OS option. This firmware is included on the game disc.  So in order to have that feature you'd be restricted to PS3 games that released before RDR.


Its not the first time I hear this, but where is the proof?  Personally, what I read on that matter, was from a website posting an unnoficial reply they supposedly got from Sony customer service. If its been proved, either the plaintiffs didnt build their case correctly or the judge completely missed the point.

"The dismay and frustration at least some PS3 owners likely experienced when Sony made the decision to limit access to the PSN service to those who were willing to disable the Other OS feature on their machines was no doubt genuine and understandable," Seeborg said in his ruling.

If they had proof of the unability to play new games, they should obviously appeal the case.



Around the Network
TadpoleJackson on 14 December 2011
Icyedge said:


Its not the first time I hear this, but where is the proof?  Personally, what I read on that matter, was from a website posting an unnoficial reply they supposedly got from Sony customer service. If its been proved, either the plaintiffs didnt build their case correctly or the judge completely missed the point.

"The dismay and frustration at least some PS3 owners likely experienced when Sony made the decision to limit access to the PSN service to those who were willing to disable the Other OS feature on their machines was no doubt genuine and understandable," Seeborg said in his ruling.

If they had proof of the unability to play new games, they should obviously appeal the case.


What, are you asking for proof that you need it? 

http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2010/05/22/redemption-kills-otheros-dead/

It even says it's comes on the disc there



Icyedge on 14 December 2011
TadpoleJackson said:
 


What, are you asking for proof that you need it? 

http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2010/05/22/redemption-kills-otheros-dead/

It even says it's comes on the disc there

Like an official Sony statement or at least, a youtube video showing the removal of "other OS" in order to play an offline regular game. When Sony blog said:

  • Ability to sign in to PlayStation Network and use network features that require signing in to PlayStation Network, such as online features of PS3 games and chat
  • Playback of PS3 software titles or Blu-ray Disc videos that require PS3 system software version 3.21 or later
  • Playback of copyright-protected videos that are stored on a media server (when DTCP-IP is enabled under Settings)
  • Use of new features and improvements that are available on PS3 system software 3.21 or later

Are they not only new games that use new hardware, like move game? Why would Red Dead Redemption have a mandatory offline firmware upgrade? On disc maybe, but offline mandatory, why? Of course if you want to use online or play a game with new hardware (ie Move),  it will requires firmware update.

I do reiterate that, if there was proof, the judge missed the point completely. He specifically say in his judgement that Sony is removing PSN, not the ability to play new regular PS3 games.

 

The source you posted about mandatory red dead redemption update is "xdarkmagician".

"Thanks, xdarkmagician."



TadpoleJackson on 14 December 2011

Since you don't believe a credible source from a site, I doubt you'll believe me. But I didn't update between 3.15 to LBP2. And I was forced too when I put it into the PS3. I don't have broadband either



Icyedge on 14 December 2011
TadpoleJackson said:
Since you don't believe a credible source from a site, I doubt you'll believe me. But I didn't update between 3.15 to LBP2. And I was forced too when I put it into the PS3. I don't have broadband either

 

Credible source from a site?!? The source's site is "xdarkmagician". LOL

 

PS3 owners clinging onto consoles running firmware earlier than 3.21 will do well to note that Rockstar’s Red Dead Redemption not only requires that particular system software to run, but handily includes it on the disk for easy installation, too.

Chances are there have been other games out since April 1st that required the OtherOS removing firmware update, but Redemption is likely to be one of the higher profile titles to do, and as far as we know this isn’t stated on the box at all so consider this a notice if you’re still to pick up the game.

This means that if you want to play Red Dead Redemption and hold on to your OtherOS installation you’ll need to grab yourself another PlayStation 3.

The PlayStation Blog did warn PS3 users that this might happen in their post at the end of March – “Use of new features and improvements that are available on PS3 system software 3.21 or later” and it really was only a matter of time before the update became compulsory.

Thanks, xdarkmagician.



Around the Network
slowmo on 14 December 2011
Icyedge said:
TadpoleJackson said:
Since you don't believe a credible source from a site, I doubt you'll believe me. But I didn't update between 3.15 to LBP2. And I was forced too when I put it into the PS3. I don't have broadband either

 

Credible source from a site?!? The source's site is "xdarkmagician". LOL

 

PS3 owners clinging onto consoles running firmware earlier than 3.21 will do well to note that Rockstar’s Red Dead Redemption not only requires that particular system software to run, but handily includes it on the disk for easy installation, too.

Chances are there have been other games out since April 1st that required the OtherOS removing firmware update, but Redemption is likely to be one of the higher profile titles to do, and as far as we know this isn’t stated on the box at all so consider this a notice if you’re still to pick up the game.

This means that if you want to play Red Dead Redemption and hold on to your OtherOS installation you’ll need to grab yourself another PlayStation 3.

The PlayStation Blog did warn PS3 users that this might happen in their post at the end of March – “Use of new features and improvements that are available on PS3 system software 3.21 or later” and it really was only a matter of time before the update became compulsory.

Thanks, xdarkmagician.

Not that it matters but I'll happily borrow a friends recent PS3 game and test in mine that it does indeed not work.



TadpoleJackson on 14 December 2011
Icyedge said:

Credible source from a site?!? The source's site is "xdarkmagician". LOL

 

PS3 owners clinging onto consoles running firmware earlier than 3.21 will do well to note that Rockstar’s Red Dead Redemption not only requires that particular system software to run, but handily includes it on the disk for easy installation, too.

Chances are there have been other games out since April 1st that required the OtherOS removing firmware update, but Redemption is likely to be one of the higher profile titles to do, and as far as we know this isn’t stated on the box at all so consider this a notice if you’re still to pick up the game.

This means that if you want to play Red Dead Redemption and hold on to your OtherOS installation you’ll need to grab yourself another PlayStation 3.

The PlayStation Blog did warn PS3 users that this might happen in their post at the end of March – “Use of new features and improvements that are available on PS3 system software 3.21 or later” and it really was only a matter of time before the update became compulsory.

Thanks, xdarkmagician.

The sixthaxis is a pretty reputable site. If what "xdarkmagician" had said was false I'm sure they would have updated the article. And, again. It made me update for LBP2 



Icyedge on 14 December 2011
slowmo said:
Icyedge said:
TadpoleJackson said:
Since you don't believe a credible source from a site, I doubt you'll believe me. But I didn't update between 3.15 to LBP2. And I was forced too when I put it into the PS3. I don't have broadband either

 

Credible source from a site?!? The source's site is "xdarkmagician". LOL

 

PS3 owners clinging onto consoles running firmware earlier than 3.21 will do well to note that Rockstar’s Red Dead Redemption not only requires that particular system software to run, but handily includes it on the disk for easy installation, too.

Chances are there have been other games out since April 1st that required the OtherOS removing firmware update, but Redemption is likely to be one of the higher profile titles to do, and as far as we know this isn’t stated on the box at all so consider this a notice if you’re still to pick up the game.

This means that if you want to play Red Dead Redemption and hold on to your OtherOS installation you’ll need to grab yourself another PlayStation 3.

The PlayStation Blog did warn PS3 users that this might happen in their post at the end of March – “Use of new features and improvements that are available on PS3 system software 3.21 or later” and it really was only a matter of time before the update became compulsory.

Thanks, xdarkmagician.

Not that it matters but I'll happily borrow a friends recent PS3 game and test in mine that it does indeed not work.

I would actually trust you on the matter. And like I said, if true, the plaintiffs should either appeal or build their case correctly. The judge thought this was about removing PSN not removing the ability to play new games.

 

"The dismay and frustration at least some PS3 owners likely experienced when Sony made the decision to limit access to the PSN service to those who were willing to disable the Other OS feature on their machines was no doubt genuine and understandable," Seeborg said in his ruling.

"As a matter of providing customer satisfaction and building loyalty, it may have been questionable."

But "as a legal matter... plaintiffs have failed to allege facts or articulate a theory on which Sony may be held liable," he concluded.

 

P.S.: if you do test it, im interested in your result. Just take a regular game, not a move game and dont try the online component of the game.



o_O.Q on 14 December 2011
fordy said:
o_O.Q said:

well to be honest i don't understand the hardware and i'm not going to try to pretend to but as you yourself said the person you quoted is an expert in these matters and once more here is what they said :

"I would be very surprised if this fix isn't hacked fairly quickly"

and beyond that there's also the fact that it was generally accepted in the hacking community that this fixed worked for consoles that had up to date firmware...

if the fix wasn't effective they would have called denied the reports of the fix but they didn't... 

"I always see Sony more as a propoaganda machine than being the people who rewrite centuries of cryptography techniques to say they fixed a problem that all credible cryptography experts agree is unfixable."

and here lies the other point you aren't seeing, it wasn't to my knowledge announced by sony that the hack was fixed... guess who announced it?...

ah i'll tell you... the hackers

so far you can't provide any statements from experts, hackers etc to confirm what you're saying ( all you're doing is forming conclusions from your own knowledge on the issue and your understanding of the console ) and unless you're an expert on the ps3s design i'm more inclined to go with what the people who actually are, are saying


"ony appeared to agree, describing the damage caused by the hack as "irreparable" - a major argument in a lawsuit they filed against Hotz. Last week, Sony was granted permission by a court in California to access the visitor logs for Hotz's website, suggesting that its legal battle will not stop with Hotz himself.

But according to Alaoui, the new firmware, version 3.6 released earlier this week, appears to have patched the damage. "For now, it looks to me (at first glance) that the PS3 has been resecured, but it doesn't mean it can't be broken again from scratch," he said in a tweet.

 It is not entirely clear how Sony fixed the hack. PS3's security is based on layers of encryption, with one layer unlocking access to the next. Hotz's hack was so devastating because he was able to access the metldr root key which undermines this chain of trust by unlocking all layers. Sony's solution appears to side step this by simply not using metldr at all, opting instead for an entirely new security system. This too could eventually be hacked but it would involve starting from scratch, says Alaoui."

 

"Along with cloud saving for PSN Plus users, Sony has added some security goodies to 3.60. The first one being bypassing metldr for good. Metldr keys are now useless. Sony is now storing all the loaders necessary to run games and everything else inside of lv0. Lv0 now loads lv1ldr,lv2ldr, etc. Since lv0 has always been decrypted by the bootloader inside of the PS3 (not metldr), we cannot decrypt lv0. In order words, all keys are now useless. No more decrypting newer games or loaders. "

 

"As for those glaring security holes? Noted PS3 hacker Youness Alaoui (aka KaKaRoToKS) posits, "For now, it looks to me (at first glance) that the PS3 has been re-secured, but it doesn't mean it can't be broken again from scratch." DigitalFoundry explains that while Geohot's reveal of the "mtldr" key irrevocably broke the PS3's "chain of trust," Sony's solution effortlessly sidesteps this seemingly insurmountable breach: "According to Alaoui's quick analysis, Sony simply doesn't use mtldr any more, opting for a new security system that could possibly require a completely new exploit to be uncovered.""

 

Oh it was all written on the internet, so it must be true, right? Let's use a little logic here to explain WHY this "fix" is nothing more than another small step:

1. We cannot assume that all PS3s are updating from the internet. As like both companies, any game that requires updated firmware is transported on disc. Now, the key can be stored in two places. The first is in protected memory, where only the OS can access. The second is a type of segregated memory only accessible by hardware (not on the main bus, therefore non-accessible memory).

In case 1 (protected memory), Sony may look to rewrite the key  (or the process) in order to allow new software to run on old consoles. This is done by a rudimentary write process that is either NOT encrypted, or encrypted by a previous key (the one that is already broken), you cannot use a key's encryption to write itself, surely you can agree with that.

In case 2 (non-accessible memory), only the hardware has access to the key, and as such it's not able to be changed. Therefore, all current hardware is indeed permanently cracked. However, new hardware isn't, but ust at least acknowledge the old hardware's key in order to maintain a backward compatibility with old games with FULL hardware privileges (you cannot box the old game into a virtual machine. Not only do you run the risk of having the VM in memory that the game uses, you're also placing a load on the system that otherwise wouldn't have been there).

There's a rule to encrypted communication, and that is that someone who controls the hardware and doesn't want security doesn't have to have it. This is why client-side security will always ultimately fail.

I am more than willing to guess that Sony did not make major hardware architectural changes to the system between old and new hardware, so I'm willing to bet that the location of the new key is around the same (if not THE same) memory location. What Sony has done is cover a broken window with a sheet of paper, hoping that will tide over until the storm moves on (ie next generation comes).

"Oh it was all written on the internet, so it must be true, right?"

isn't the internet how you learned of the keys, sony's security issues etc in the first place? if that is the case... whats your point?

the part where you mentioned the software updates is correct... there are ps3s out there that people leave unupdated so that they can use the exploit, so yes those are unprotected but beyond that the exploit has been fixed

as for the rest of your post as i said before i don't fully understand the ps3s architecture so i'm not going to get into a debate on that...

but as i said before unless you're an expert on the ps3s architecture i don't really see how you can expect me to take you seriously... what makes you more reliable than the hackers and experts who have said the issue was fixed?



Icyedge on 14 December 2011
TadpoleJackson said:
 

The sixthaxis is a pretty reputable site. If what "xdarkmagician" had said was false I'm sure they would have updated the article. And, again. It made me update for LBP2 

No, however you see it, this is not a concrete proof of anything. And I surely wouldnt trust you on this matter. But why are we arguing here? Im just waiting for concrete evidence before making a point of view, im all for it if you can give it to me. Im actually of the opinion that if they did remove the ability to play new game, the plaintiffs should appeal the case and Sony should pay some kind of damage to those affected. But like I said, it seems that either the judge missed the point, the plaintiff didnt build the case correctly, or you dont have to remove "other OS" in order to play the offline component of a non move game. Im open to real proof, just not different claims by different websites or persons. That being said, If a reputable poster known by me do try it, why not. Until then, the judge is more reputable.