News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential by nemothekid on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @03:02AM (#7055944)
The PS3 only went uncracked for so long because Sony offered the option to install Linux on the PS3. Once Sony removed that option the people with the smarts to crack the PS3 did so. Once a magnifying glass was put under the PS3 it turned out that the "DRM" was actually horribly implemented (like Rand() functions that were essentially returning constants).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4lo...

Re:Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential by x123 on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @04:19AM (#7056111)
> The PS3 only went uncracked for so long because Sony offered the option to install Linux on the PS3. Once Sony removed that option the people with the smarts to crack the PS3 did so.

It's funny how the facts change over time. Just to correct the facts here: the reveal of the PS3 hack occured on January 26, 2010 and then OtherOS support was removed on April 1, 2010 citing security concerns as the rationale. And to top it off: if you look at the hacker's reasons for hacking, Linux was nowhere in his motivations.

Off topic: This is why I hate history. If we can't even remember what happened 3 years ago even if we have all records available at our fingerprints then how can we be sure what happened like 100 years ago?

Re:Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential by ZenoArrow on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @05:13AM (#7056256)
You've misunderstood the facts. The PS3 security was not fully compromised with the first hack, and locking down the console was a motivation to those who ended up cracking the security properly (news released December 2010). Watch this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEFMAP0mTvY#t=0
Re:Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential by deelowe on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @07:30AM (#7056631)
Doesn't change the fact that Hotz was working on the crack before otheros was removed. So, the removal of otheros was not the seminal moment that the op described. That is, the ps3 did not take so long to crack due to insufficient motivation. It took as long as it did, because it was a more difficult platform. There are similar trends in other areas as well like rooting/jailbreaking phones and installing Linux on UEFI machines.
Re:Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential by ZenoArrow on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @09:24AM (#7057168)
Hotz's hacking may have been a contributing factor for getting OtherOS removed, but it's removal does appear to be a motivation to those behind the more complete hacks that followed (I believe it's mentioned in the video series I linked to). So with a timeline of April 2010 to December 2010, fully exploiting the PS3 security took less than 12 months.
Re:Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential by deelowe on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @12:04PM (#7058141)
Sure, but I think that's orthogonal. My comment is addressing the OPs original premise. I seriously doubt there were hackers sitting around saying "we'll leave the PS3 alone as long as OtherOS stays supported." While removing OtherOS certainly brought more attention to the platform and accelerated the hacking, I think the reason it took so long for the PS3 to be finally cracked mostly had to do with the complexity of the architecture or other things. I don't think OtherOS was a factor.

As a counterpoint, I offer the xbox 360, which to my knowledge has not been cracked except for DVD firmware hacks and physically altering the device (mod chips).

The conclusion of this is that hackers will not continue to win the DRM battle. Eventually, enough holes will be plugged, where cracking these products becomes so time or cost prohibitive that the product stays closed for it's lifetime.

Re:Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential by gcb0 on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @03:36AM (#7056015)
i don't follow sony because i don't consume from companies with lock in tactics (betamax, laserdisc, md, memory stick, etc, etc) but thank you for that. it was awesomely entertaining.
Re:Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential by talmand on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @11:39AM (#7057968)
So, your current living quarters has hardly any modern entertainment to speak of? Good thing libraries still exist.
Re:Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential by gcb0 on Wednesday January 15, 2014 @12:48AM (#7061871)
I can garantee you i don't miss blueray as i did not miss laser disc.

Also it's much more convenient that my camera and phones use sd cards instead of memory sick..

You're point?

Re:Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential by talmand on Wednesday January 15, 2014 @10:50AM (#7063980)
Oh, don't get me wrong, I have no point per se. I'm just amazed that someone has gone that route in this age of apathy. But I am assuming this extends beyond Sony products as many electronics are along the same lines in terms of locked environments.
Re:Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential by byuu on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @08:38AM (#7056911)
Yes, they certainly made mistakes with the PS3 crypto. And those mistakes are now certainly fixed in the PS4.

Although it sounds poetic, I don't believe for a second that the PS3 was protected by offering a limited Linux install option with crippled software graphics. The timing of the break just coincided well with that. Of course this is all my opinion on the matter.

The PS4 lacks Linux install support completely, so if Linux was the protecting factor, then people should already be tearing it apart, right? I could certainly be wrong, and there could be a gaping flaw, but my hunch is that it's going to take longer than the PS3 to crack.