The whitelist is a nasty horrible means of dealing with this if it needs to include game binaries. Whenever any game has an update or patch the whitelist will need to be updated. That is not a suitable solution in my view.
Technological discussion on PS3 security and crack.*
- Thread starter senas8
- Start date
The whitelist is a nasty horrible means of dealing with this if it needs to include game binaries. Whenever any game has an update or patch the whitelist will need to be updated. That is not a suitable solution in my view.
Sony's strategies have already changed if you consider Qriocity and Move.
The other factors are Apple's low cost games, success of casual gaming in cellphones, accelerated adoption of digital movies.
There are also industry people who think that open platform is the future (I believe Phil Harrison and Gabe belong to that camp).
EDIT:
Ironically, Kutaragi's original vision for Playstation was to stop charging licensing fees to game developers and will make money only from sales of its own games and hardware.
I am not sure what their latest plans are now. If they go there, it'd be more like Back to the Future.
if the game has an update you can sign it again with a new key. Any kind of whitelist is a mess, but what are the other options?
corduroygt
Banned
Exactly, if they want PS4 BC with PS3, they'll have to resign all game binaries with the new keys only. Most game executables are small enough to be included in an update anyways. Maybe it's more practical to have an update for every game (since it'll be required for PS4 as well) containing the game executable with the new keys, so no messing with whitelists. Of course this won't stop people from just not updating, but at least it'll keep em offline and not spoiling the others' multiplayer.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 7537
Guest
They just published the hash value (SHA-1) of the keys. It makes no sense, does it? Why not publish the key itself...
Last edited by a moderator:
NathansFortune
Regular
You can pre-whitelist games that are yet to be released in a small update every 3 months. It's not that hard. I expect it is the route Sony will take with this latest blow, which means more updates for legitimate users...
And what about the mass of Indie Arcade games? It also means pushing out an update every single time any game has a title update. I would expect the list would need to be updated at a minimum once a month. Does the whitelist include the prior versions of a game (straight off the disc) or application such as Netflix/HuluPlus and all versions of it's title-updates or do you only include the first and last version?
At a minimum you need to store all the allowed versions of a game/app, and I'll detail why. Does Sony push the system updates on newer game discs so offline users gets them too similar to how MS Xbox does? If you only store the last allowed version and you push out the update on a newly released game's disc, then it's guaranteed that the update will invalidate other games the offline user has installed that have online title-updates but haven't been installed on the offline system. Can you imagine the tech support issues that will cause -- installing a new game makes it impossible to play old games! I expect the list to become quite large and unmanageable.
It's a very nasty solution that I think is actually worse than the problem.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
An update once a month is generous in the extreme, IMO. Considering how often even well funded titles get updates within the first 1-4 weeks of release, I wouldn't be surprised if they needed to update the list 5+ (with the possibility of far more updates, especially during the holiday months) times a month.
This also means that everything would need to be signed and whitelisted, including Netflix, Qriocity, everything. As a whitelist would require everything not in the list to be disabled. If you don't, then you just left open a big wide open door for unsigned or self signed applications.
Regards,
SB
This also means that everything would need to be signed and whitelisted, including Netflix, Qriocity, everything. As a whitelist would require everything not in the list to be disabled. If you don't, then you just left open a big wide open door for unsigned or self signed applications.
Regards,
SB
The Chain Of Trust table shown in the presentation (about 1min in third video) would suggest this is significantly more difficult that it would seem because the revocation system is broken due to being extraordinarily poorly designed! Code will be loaded (and run) before its checked to see if its revoked.
Last edited by a moderator:
If every time I have to patch a game, a few MBs of patch turns into a full half-hour of update, I'll be cheering the hackers on to provide me a FW that means I don't have to! As so often, piracy measure harm legitimate users more than thwart pirates. Adding layers of complications and frustration for legitimate users has got to be one of the best ways of damaging your brand.
I suppose the idea is that when your system turns into a PC, noone can be considered a legitimate user anymoreShifty Geezer said:
Personally I just see this as more writting on the wall for the 'standard'-software business model, regardless of what happens with the console in the end.
Wow, how did he get to the those keys..!?
Those are pretty hollow statements cause regardless of what he said he posted the keys.
http://geohot.com/
I only pick the locks, and I do it for Santa..don't care if thieves break in instead.
And if you want a better lock, hire me.
Last edited by a moderator:
I would not be surprised if we end up with some stupid law that would make shit like what he does illegal.
For all the cool stuff that might bless PS3 owners, those that buy their games and play them online will pay..
Not to mention the developers that make a living by creating these games.
http://twitter.com/marcan42@marcan42 said:
http://psx-scene.com/forums/644213-post236.html
geohot said:
Days of Our Lives. Cue popcorn. LOL
Tommy McClain
But that's not the case with the PS3 right? For PS3 it's just a matter of how big the developer makes the executable, as that's usually the thing that needs to be updated at minimum. That can vary a lot, from a few MB to the full game, whatever size that may be. That there is so much variation seems to be more lazyness either on the side of developers (reduce testing overhead) or Sony (force policies or provide other solutions to the problem).
Also, why I agree in principle, and have advised various bosses of mine against employing any security measures at all, in the case of firmwares on consoles, the PSP was released almost completely open initially, and has been (very) slowly closed down to some significant level of protection. If I compare how things went for that system with the PS3, I'm having a hard time arguing for a more open system there.
(Of course that does not mean I wouldn't condone something like the App Store on any system, but I live in a very rich country with an incredibly high level of piracy and an incredibly low public sense of that being wrong)
Similar threads
- Locked