freaktheclown writes "The US Patent and Trademark Office has revealed that Apple has filed patent no. 20050246554 for a "system and method for creating tamper-resistant code." The system is presumably for use in Apple's Intel version of its Tiger operating system." Apple Files Patent for "Tamper-Resistant Code" Log in/Create an Account | Top | 201 comments | Search Discussion Display Options Threshold: -1: 201 comments 0: 192 comments 1: 137 comments 2: 100 comments 3: 38 comments 4: 24 comments 5: 16 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. Link to patent publication (Score:5, Informative) by Paska (801395) * on Wednesday November 09, @07:50PM (#13994117) For those who are interested, link to the original application publication. [uspto.gov] [ Reply to This typo in the patent? (Score:5, Funny) by conJunk (779958) on Wednesday November 09, @08:22PM (#13994350) A system and method for creating tamper-resistant code are described herein. In one embodiment, the method comprises receiving a first object code block. The method also comprises translating the first object code block into a second code block, wherein the translating includes applying taper-resistance techniques to the first object code block or the second object code block. The method also comprises executing the second object code block. it's candle proof? it can't be narrowed? [ Reply to This | ParentRe:typo in the patent? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday November 09, @08:45PMRe:typo in the patent? by ChrisMaple (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @08:45PMRe:typo in the patent? by krakelohm (Score:1) Wednesday November 09, @09:17PM Re:Link to patent publication (Score:5, Funny) by Xyrus (755017) on Wednesday November 09, @08:37PM (#13994441) (Last Journal: Sunday June 26, @09:32AM) I'll just set that on the wall next to the unpickable lock, the unstealable car, and the unhackable DRM.~X~ [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Link to patent publication by wickedsteve (Score:1) Wednesday November 09, @08:47PM Re:Link to patent publication (Score:4, Funny) by SFalcon (809084) on Wednesday November 09, @08:54PM (#13994545) That's not a good analogy. If flame-resistant blankets were like tamper-resistant code, once fire managed to burn the blanket it would then post all over the internet describing how it succeeded, resulting in increasingly efficient burning of said blankets. [ Reply to This | Parentobl. Simpsons quote required here. by pboulang (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @10:16PMRe:Link to patent publication by sharkey (Score:1) Wednesday November 09, @08:52PMRe:Link to patent publication by Pig Hogger (Score:3) Wednesday November 09, @09:25PMRe:Link to patent publication by Chosen Reject (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @09:42PMRe:Link to patent publication by catwh0re (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @10:05PMre: unhackable DRM, etc. by King_TJ (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @11:11PM4 replies beneath your current threshold. Looks like some of the IOCCC code is being release (Score:1) by Amouth (879122) on Wednesday November 09, @07:53PM (#13994137) "A system and method for creating tamper-resistant code are described herein. In one embodiment, the method comprises receiving a first object code block. The method also comprises translating the first object code block into a second object code block, wherein the translating includes applying to the first object code block or the second object code block tamper-resistance techniques. The method also comprises executing the second object code block. "can i get a umm i understand but.. wtf? [ Reply to ThisRe:Looks like some of the IOCCC code is being rele by JohnnyLocust (Score:1) Wednesday November 09, @08:00PMRe:Looks like some of the IOCCC code is being rele by vought (Score:3) Wednesday November 09, @08:25PMRe:Looks like some of the IOCCC code is being rele by ZhuLien (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @08:43PM I've SEEN this! (Score:5, Funny) by TheSpoom (715771) on Wednesday November 09, @08:56PM (#13994554) (http://www.uberm00.net/ | Last Journal: Monday January 19, @09:27PM) I recently had a friend ask me for help in debugging a PHP extension for some CMS... Ah, Google to the rescue; it was SEF Advance [sakic.net], a Joomla extension that did... something, I never really bothered to find out. Anyway, issue was that the guy was trying to debug the script locally (maybe to add something) and it was saying that it "was only licensed to x and y domains", where x and y were the production servers. The code itself was a bunch of open source config variables, then a statement as follows:eval(gzinflate(base64_decode('7T39Vxs5k...')));The parameter went on for ages. When I changed the eval to echo, I got another block of the same, only the data was different. Apparently the guy had just gzipped his code over and over (five times to be exact) and used that as "encryption" so nobody would be able to modify it. I got around it in around five minutes, and sure enough, the domains were simply an array in the decrypted (inflated?) code.The point is, according to the parent, it looks like Apple is patenting object code encryption, which has been done many, many times before in many different ways. I'm sure that the rest of the patent indicates something "unique" (and I put unique in quotes because there's no way to know it hasn't been done before somewhere) but in the end it's just diminishing possible future innovations by a little bit, like all software patents.(Does this mean I'm
captainstabbin monica
free captainstabbin
capatin stabbin
liable under the DMCA? :^D) [ Reply to This | ParentRe:I've SEEN this! by MouseR (Score:2) Thursday November 10, @12:36AM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Oh, I get it (Score:5, Funny) by ndansmith (582590) on Wednesday November 09, @07:53PM (#13994139) (http://ndansmith.net/) If you set the source code file to "Read Only," no one can change it.Why didn't I think of that?Seriously, this idea sounds so silly, it will only invite more developers to hack OSx86 in their spare time. With OpenDarwin already ported to x86, unless they make serious changes to the OS X kernel, I doubt any measure of TPM will be able to keep people from homebrewing their Macs now. [ Reply to ThisRe:Oh, I get it by Gentlewhisper (Score:3) Wednesday November 09, @07:56PMRe:Oh, I get it by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday November 09, @08:01PM Re:Oh, I get it (Score:5, Insightful) by snuf23 (182335) on Wednesday November 09, @08:18PM (#13994329) Just because a company could install the OS on it's hardware does not make it legal. Dell cannot sell computers with OS X on them without consent from Apple. I seriously DOUBT they would secretly make it so that OS X would run on Dells. To do so would violate the DMCA and would not be able to be passed of as an accident. [ Reply to This | ParentAnd even if I could...would I? by Ritz_Just_Ritz (Score:3) Wednesday November 09, @09:24PMRe:And even if I could...would I? by The Warlock (Score:1) Wednesday November 09, @10:15PMRe:And even if I could...would I? by snuf23 (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @10:21PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Oh, I get it by IntergalacticWalrus (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @09:40PMRe:Oh, I get it by bergeron76 (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @11:14PM That's fair. (Score:3, Insightful) by JohnnyLocust (855742) on Wednesday November 09, @07:54PM (#13994143) (http://buttnakedbroadcasting.blogspot.com/) Seeing how Apple's business model revolves mostly around hardware sales, I can understand why they'd go to such lengths to keep people from installing it on any computer they want. [ Reply to ThisRe:That's fair. by Jason1729 (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @08:13PMRe:That's fair. by martalli (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @08:38PMRe:That's fair. by arootbeer (Score:1) Wednesday November 09, @08:57PM Re:That's fair. (Score:4, Insightful) by Omestes (471991) <omestes@gmail.cYEATSom minus poet> on Wednesday November 09, @09:18PM (#13994675) (http://omestes.nonservium.org/) Apple is not MS, I think they have other standards besides JUST market share.I think they want to be BETTER in all ways, and let that sell their computers.Jobs is a perfectionist, I think, before he is a capitalist.You make better customers when you do this, have a superior product in all ways. How many Windows fanatics are there compaired to the Mac people. Much more? Pretty good being that MS has a 80% market share, yeah? [ Reply to This | Parent in other news ... (Score:2, Funny) by boxlight (928484) on Wednesday November 09, @07:54PM (#13994144) In other news ... Microsoft files patent for sucking-resistent code. [ Reply to ThisRe:in other news ... by JediLow (Score:1) Wednesday November 09, @08:06PMRe:in other news ... by Dragoonmac (Score:1) Wednesday November 09, @08:07PMRe:in other news ... by richdun (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @08:52PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Would you bet... (Score:1) by Carpe PM (754778) on Wednesday November 09, @07:55PM (#13994157) it will resist for less than a week? [ Reply to This1 reply beneath your current threshold. Aptly named. (Score:5, Funny) by AFCArchvile (221494) on Wednesday November 09, @07:56PM (#13994161) It's called "tamper-resistant" because the Titanic was unsinkable. [ Reply to ThisRe:Aptly named. by Sailor Coruscant (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @07:58PM Yes it really is (Re:Aptly named). (Score:5, Informative) by jockm (233372) on Wednesday November 09, @07:59PM (#13994191) (http://www.jockmurphy.com/) They didn't say tamper-proof. They said resistant. The scheme they describe would make it rather hard to alter they bytestream.The Titanic was really sink-resitant... [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Yes it really is (Re:Aptly named). by blandthrax (Score:1) Wednesday November 09, @09:23PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Sounds impossible (Score:3, Interesting) by slashname3 (739398) on Wednesday November 09, @07:56PM (#13994165) Sounds kind of like having an acid that can eat through anything. How do you can you keep it in a container if it can eat through anything? Wonder if it will take more than 48 hours for someone to figure out a way to crack this one? [ Reply to ThisRe:Sounds impossible by interiot (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @08:04PMRe:Sounds impossible by swiftstream (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @09:25PMRe:Sounds impossible by gringer (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @10:38PMRe:Sounds impossible by AtrozGrifo (Score:1) Wednesday November 09, @09:37PMRe:Sounds impossible by StikyPad (Score:3) Wednesday November 09, @10:08PMRe:Sounds impossible by Lehk228 (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @10:17PM2 replies beneath your current threshold. Are they trying to patent checksums? (Score:1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 09, @07:56PM (#13994170) 1. A method comprising: receiving a first object code block; translating the first object code block into a second object code block, wherein the translating includes applying tamper-resistance techniques to the first object code block or the second object code block; and executing the second object code block.Sounds like a checksum would fall into that category. [ Reply to This Prior Art! (Score:5, Funny) by EdwinBoyd (810701) on Wednesday November 09, @07:56PM (#13994171) I do believe HAL 9000's tamper resistant code kicked into high gear around hour 2 of 2001."I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that" [ Reply to This Hey... back off (Score:4, Funny) by ImaLamer (260199) <john...lamar@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday November 09, @08:20PM (#13994332) (http://mintruth.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday June 05, @05:40PM) I for one welcome our new tamper-resistant overlords. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Prior Art! by a.d.trick (Score:1) Wednesday November 09, @09:08PM2 replies beneath your current threshold. Rootkit prevention (Score:1) by iMaple (769378) on Wednesday November 09, @07:58PM (#13994179) I wonder if this is to make the OS 'rootkit resistant' considering the recent Sony rootkit fiasco. I mean to just prevent Tiger from running on any X86, I would guess some hardware protection system would be way more secure than a pure software solution. [ Reply to This Translating code blocks (Score:5, Interesting) by Trevin (570491) on Wednesday November 09, @07:59PM (#13994192) (http://www.xmission.com/~trevin/) My first reaction to this subject was "there is no code which cannot be cracked, given enough time and determination."After looking over the article, the method reminds me of Synapse Software's SynCalc (and related) programs for the 8-bit Atari computers. They had some real good code obfuscation, and they managed to do it in less that 48K of RAM! I never did get as far as figuring out whether they were using more than one level of a virtual machine, code obfuscation, or what have you. [ Reply to ThisRe:Translating code blocks by Overly Critical Guy (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @08:40PMRe:Translating code blocks by PlusFiveTroll (Score:1) Wednesday November 09, @08:52PMRe:Translating code blocks by Pig Hogger (Score:3) Wednesday November 09, @09:34PMRe:Translating code blocks by sabernet (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @09:36PMRe:Translating code blocks by Overly Critical Guy (Score:2) Thursday November 10, @12:08AMRe:Translating code blocks by kinzillah (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @09:54PMRe:Translating code blocks by Doctor_Jest (Score:2) Thursday November 10, @12:10AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Translating code blocks by toddestan (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @10:50PMOS X on commodity hardware by jmorris42 (Score:2) Thursday November 10, @12:03AMRe:OS X on commodity hardware by Overly Critical Guy (Score:2) Thursday November 10, @12:11AM Don't they mean... (Score:2, Interesting) by Chickenofbristol55 (884806) on Wednesday November 09, @08:01PM (#13994207) ...that they just want people not to tamper with their code? I see no need for a patent. I recall a time when a patent was for something important: a novel idea or mechanism of some kind. Making a patent doesn't really do much, other than making it impossible for other people/companies to hack into osX 86. But then again, it was illegal anyway, so no one could (legally) hack osX x86 before this patent. Seems kind of redundant. [ Reply to ThisRe:Don't they mean... by Unordained (Score:3) Wednesday November 09, @08:22PM2 replies beneath your current threshold. Tamper resistent? (Score:5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 09, @08:03PM (#13994220) They are patenting Perl? [ Reply to ThisRe:Tamper resistent? by Pleb'a.nz (Score:1) Wednesday November 09, @09:48PMRe:Tamper resistent? by zsau (Score:3) Wednesday November 09, @10:24PM The most interesting thing about this (Score:4, Interesting) by spirit_fingers (777604) on Wednesday November 09, @08:06PM (#13994243) For me as an administrator in a Mac-centric company, the most interesting part of this is Apple's accomodation of Linux, Windows and the Mac OS on their intel platform while simultaneously attempting to prevent their OS from being installed on a generic intel PC. If Apple can pull it off, it will give a significant value-add to their intel boxes. That's something that Micheal Dell would give his right arm to be able to do. [ Reply to ThisRe:The most interesting thing about this by tool462 (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @09:10PMRe:The most interesting thing about this by Thing 1 (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @10:08PMMy letter to Apple for what I want on a x86 Macs by saha (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @10:56PM Emulators (Score:2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 09, @08:07PM (#13994247) Nevermind the DRM stuff, this is the interesting part. OS X/Wine, anyone?20. A method comprising: receiving a system call, wherein the system call is formatted for requesting a service from a first operating system, wherein the system call is included in a first object code block, wherein the first object code block is a run-time translation of a second object code block; determining which system call services of a second operating system are needed for providing the service; determining whether system call services for servicing the system call have been disabled, wherein the determining is based on a tamper-resistance policy; servicing the system call, if the system call services for servicing the system call have not been disabled.21. The method of claim 20, wherein the tamper-resistance policy disables system call services that access system resources.22. The method of claim 20, wherein the first operating system is selected from the set consisting of Mac OS X, Linux, and Microsoft Windows.23. The method of claim 20, wherein the second operating system is selected from the set consisting of Mac OS X, Linux, and Microsoft Windows. [ Reply to ThisCan some ... by Savage-Rabbit (Score:3) Wednesday November 09, @08:14PM Re:Can some ... (Score:5, Funny) by kebes (861706) on Wednesday November 09, @08:34PM (#13994422) I'll gladly translate into multiple dialects for you.Marketing language:"20. A method comprosing: receiving a system call, wherein the system call is in synergy with other components of a system, wherein the sum of the system is leveraged to meet market demands in a new and fundamentally influential way, wherein a paradigm-shift results from the impact of the novel processes and inherently forward-looking business model that thereby ensues."Money language:"20. A method comprising: we program our computer to do something, someone else somewhere on earth programs their computer to do something that turns out to be similar; we determine that they have a computer doing something that only we are allowed to do; we sue; we make money."Tinfoil-hat language:"20. A method comprising: receiving a system call, wherein the system call is formatted to include all personal information on the computer, wherein this information is then encrypted and sent off to corporate HQ servers in order to be analyzed and thereafter used against the user of the originating personal computer sytem."(very) Plain english:"20. A method comprising: stuff happens."Plain english:"20. A method comprising: A translation layer between different operating system abstraction levels. When a running program (which may have been translated from a stored version of the program) makes a system call to the operating system, this methodology will handle that system call in such a way as to be "tamper resistant." For instance, it will only allow operations determined to be acceptable." [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Emulators by erinacht (Score:2) Thursday November 10, @12:54AM Old Idea-Prior Art (Score:4, Interesting) by TFGeditor (737839) on Wednesday November 09, @08:07PM (#13994253) (http://www.fishgame.com/) Back in the day when memory was at a premium (64k-bytes max), self-replicating code was the bane of both "hackers" and sys admins.(yawn) [ Reply to ThisRe:Old Idea-Prior Art by larkost (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @09:58PM There's another, more interesting aspect of this: (Score:5, Interesting) by phillymjs (234426) <slashdot AT stango DOT info> on Wednesday November 09, @08:15PM (#13994304) (http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday December 15, @09:26PM) An excerpt from an article on Architosh: [architosh.com]However, the patent describes a process whereby users would be able to load one of three operating systems as their primary OS and then load a secondary operating system as their secondary OS. In the patent application, titled, System and method for creating tamper-resistant code, they describe the process as thus:22. The method of claim 20, wherein the first operating system is selected from the set consisting of Mac OS X, Linux, and Microsoft Windows.23. The method of claim 20, wherein the second operating system is selected from the set consisting of Mac OS X, Linux, and Microsoft Windows. From the sound of this, Apple is indeed going to do what I had simultaneously hoped for and feared: They're going to enable people to boot into OS X and run Windows at the same time (and vice versa)-- probably very similar to the way Classic runs now.I had hoped for this because it makes switching infinitely easier-- people can just load up Windows and their apps on their Intel-based Mac, and make a gradual transition to OS X. Those who use Windows-only vertical-market apps will have the world of the Mac opened up to them.I had feared this because there are bound to be some cheap/lazy asshole developers who will take one look at the Windows compatibility environment, cancel the Mac versions of their products, and tell Mac users to just use the Windows versions in said compatibility environment. I'd hate to see this reverse the Mac application availability renaissance that has been going on for the last few years.~Philly [ Reply to ThisRe:There's another, more interesting aspect of thi by christurkel (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @08:25PMRe:There's another, more interesting aspect of thi by Daniel Dvorkin (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @08:26PMRed/Blue Box for x86? by alexhmit01 (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @11:33PM Re:There's another, more interesting aspect of thi (Score:5, Funny) by maelstrom (638) on Wednesday November 09, @08:29PM (#13994391) (http://shiftyblog.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday March 07, @10:39PM) No worries mate, it worked out pretty good for OS/2 Warp. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:There's another, more interesting aspect of thi by Rude Turnip (Score:1) Wednesday November 09, @09:11PMRe:There's another, more interesting aspect of thi by Hao Wu (Score:1) Wednesday November 09, @09:09PMRe:There's another, more interesting aspect of thi by glens (Score:1) Wednesday November 09, @09:43PMRe:reminds me and makes sense of ms droping office by qengho (Score:3) Wednesday November 09, @11:16PMRe:reminds me and makes sense of ms droping office by tm2b (Score:2) Thursday November 10, @12:05AM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Tamper-resistant != tamper-proof (Score:4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 09, @08:20PM (#13994337) Tamper-resistant perhaps, but not tamper-proof! Cracks to this (along with everything else developed for the mac) are readily available [macserialjunkie.com]. As the popularity of the platform grows, so will the number of people cracking, hacking and providing patches. [ Reply to This Does it have to work to be patentable? (Score:4, Interesting) by erroneus (253617) on Wednesday November 09, @08:21PM (#13994341) (http://www.d-n-a.cc/) Essentially, I cannot imagine how it could happen effectively. I program is a series of isntructions. We can talk about multiprocessor systems and all that all day long, but the fact is, it's code that is watching code to ensure it is authentic.That said, someone could try to create a processor that does not but audit the code being run and that it be outside of the main system's functions. I can imagine a lot of things that could be done with a scenario like that... but again, just like a thousand other things, it'll be hackable.Apple should just face the facts: Build on a system that is already populated with crackers and coders who are intimately familiar with hacking software systems, and you are giving them a new toy to play with. They had a good thing going when they were vending relatively unique hardware. Now they have decided to switch, ever increasingly, to less propietary hardware in order to save costs. They did it when they adopted PCI, PC style memory and IDE mass storage devices. Before long, people were upgrading their own systems with non-Apple stuff. Now the very core of the computer itself is being moved over to something more readily available on the market... they don't expect people to want to play?They are going to spend a LOT of money to avoid the unavoidable... they are going to waste a LOT of money. At some point they are going to have to choose either to abandon the OSX86 project and go back to PowerPC or just live with the fact that some people will run their OS on PCs not made by them. [ Reply to ThisRe:Does it have to work to be patentable? by John Whitley (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @08:53PMRe:Does it have to work to be patentable? by hackstraw (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @10:55PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Missed the point (Score:5, Informative) by rhesuspieces00 (804354) on Wednesday November 09, @08:22PM (#13994346)