PS Jailbreak - The first PS3 Modchip

[raulpica]

Er, sarcasm?
Nope, when I'm sarcastic I usually use sarcasm tags.

QUOTE(t_jay17 @ Aug 30 2010, 08:07 PM) I just read this on Maxconsole.


Well known hacking PR guru Mathieulh has stated the following on his Twitter page - "Someone from our group just successfully cloned the psjailbreak dongle. Going to improve the shell code soon." Interesting stuff, if true, it just goes to show how 'easy' this device is to clone and the potential even bigger Migraine Sony will have if they try to stop every development. Remember you can follow Maxconsole on Twitter @MaxconsoleTweet. *Update* Mathieulh claims that the exploit will be documented on the PS3Wiki as soon as possible. The writing up of it will take a 'bit'.

Since this is Matieulh we're talking about, there's an high chance of seeing a PSP version of the exploit (hopefully).

 

[codezer0]

The lawsuit regarding OtherOS is going to faill. Sony has a right to protect their security even by disabling the OtherOS function. If anyone thinks that the PS3jailbreak issue means they should put the function back then they haven't been playing attention to the fact that the OtherOS feature (because of geohot's exploit) was a factor in the development of the PS3jailbreak. It just gives more ammo to Sony's reasoning of disabling it in the first place.

there's just a few problems with that statement:
#1 - it's a feature I paid to have in my "phat" ps3. While I didn't use it immediately, it was one I was willing to wait for, and to see what types of advances the OSS community would have done. most recently, my killer app for using Linux on my PS3, was the zerogame project. A set of software and utility that enables the PS3 to play many, many more games than what it was initially made for. And Sony didn't have to support these people. All they really had to do, was keep OtherOS open.

But much like what I said when they started to remove BC from their hardware, they chose to 'stick their dicks in it', and ruin it.

#2 - There have already been hacks to show that OtherOS was not even necessary to actually 'hack' the PS3.

Remember "Hello World?" that one simply used the same scripting language Sony provides to make their dynamic themes work. Without it, they can't fleece you $3~5 per theme to have all those animations and the like while not playing a game. Are you telling me their reaction should then be to disable any and all themes from now on? Yea, I see that going VERY well for them.

This PSJailbreak would be item #3.

All different ways released to hack the PS3, and two of them came as a reaction to them removing it. I called it even back then - Sony removing OtherOS with such a half-hearted explanation, was only going to alienate and piss off the wrong people, who will now go out of their way to hack the thing wide open. And as it is now, I have zero sympathy for them. Protecting things for legitimate players is one thing, but their moves as of late have been nothing but knee-jerk reactions dictated by someone who obviously doesn't even play video games or has any love for the very people that fund their paychecks. Sarbanes-Oxley laws here in the US started because of this very nonsense.

As I also said, I had basically been waiting to see something similar to the matrix infinity, only on the ps3. That's about all I'd need for a "sploit" to suit my needs. With stuff like this going around, I now can feel it'll only be a matter of time before I can use my PS3 like they ($ony) advertise - "it only does everything", right?

 

[Jiggah]

The lawsuit regarding OtherOS is going to faill. Sony has a right to protect their security even by disabling the OtherOS function. If anyone thinks that the PS3jailbreak issue means they should put the function back then they haven't been playing attention to the fact that the OtherOS feature (because of geohot's exploit) was a factor in the development of the PS3jailbreak. It just gives more ammo to Sony's reasoning of disabling it in the first place.

there's just a few problems with that statement:
#1 - it's a feature I paid to have in my "phat" ps3. While I didn't use it immediately, it was one I was willing to wait for, and to see what types of advances the OSS community would have done. most recently, my killer app for using Linux on my PS3, was the zerogame project. A set of software and utility that enables the PS3 to play many, many more games than what it was initially made for. And Sony didn't have to support these people. All they really had to do, was keep OtherOS open.

But much like what I said when they started to remove BC from their hardware, they chose to 'stick their dicks in it', and ruin it.

#2 - There have already been hacks to show that OtherOS was not even necessary to actually 'hack' the PS3.

Remember "Hello World?" that one simply used the same scripting language Sony provides to make their dynamic themes work. Without it, they can't fleece you $3~5 per theme to have all those animations and the like while not playing a game. Are you telling me their reaction should then be to disable any and all themes from now on? Yea, I see that going VERY well for them.

This PSJailbreak would be item #3.

All different ways released to hack the PS3, and two of them came as a reaction to them removing it. I called it even back then - Sony removing OtherOS with such a half-hearted explanation, was only going to alienate and piss off the wrong people, who will now go out of their way to hack the thing wide open. And as it is now, I have zero sympathy for them. Protecting things for legitimate players is one thing, but their moves as of late have been nothing but knee-jerk reactions dictated by someone who obviously doesn't even play video games or has any love for the very people that fund their paychecks. Sarbanes-Oxley laws here in the US started because of this very nonsense.

As I also said, I had basically been waiting to see something similar to the matrix infinity, only on the ps3. That's about all I'd need for a "sploit" to suit my needs. With stuff like this going around, I now can feel it'll only be a matter of time before I can use my PS3 like they ($ony) advertise - "it only does everything", right?

1. If you wanted to retain that functionality, you didn't have to update. It is in Sony's right to prevent you from playing any future games or getting on their network.

2. The "Hello World" script exploits lead to nothing substantial. This is a moot point just as is the removal of the OtherOS function on the Slim. When you buy a Slim, you know you aren't getting OtherOS functionality. If you wanted the functionality, you could simply choose not to buy it. The release of Geohot's exploit = January 2010, the removal of the OtherOS option in the firmware = around March 2010 with the 3.21 Firmware.

 

[codezer0]

1. If you wanted to retain that functionality, you didn't have to update. It is in Sony's right to prevent you from playing any future games or getting on their network.

That's where we have to disagree.

Not allowing me to play online (meh), or be able to play new demos or newer games on the system

flies in the face of ethical business practice, and should be illegal (if it already isn't).

I did not "choose" to buy a slim. But if this "phat" ps3 I have dies on me, I would have no other choice for a PS3.

Their latest advertising is "it only does everything". Well, their advertising definitely feels like a blatant lie considering what all they have done since launch to remove things it is able to do. And we as users and consumers shouldn't have to stand or tolerate such bullshit. They should be - rightfully - burned at the stake for these boneheaded moves.

And as geohot had correctly predicted, OtherOS was never necessary to actually hack the PS3. At most, his stuff would have got around Sony's need to update the hypervisor they used as frequently, and possibly allowed for Linux installs to be able to more directly tap into the power of the hardware already there. Meaning, 3D Acceleration for ps3Linux.

Sony may have more "experience" in handling piracy than Nintendo, but they also have committed many more blunders in the name of fighting piracy than Nintendo as well. And many so-called "foolproof" protections from them only went to be beat by very stupidly simple means. The copy-protection on CD's that only required a bit of clear tape around the rim? Or the fact that most PS1's were able to read copied discs that were burned on a black-bottom CD-R and ripped with CloneCD are among many that come to mind. Yet at the same time, we also see very consumer-unfriendly overreactions from them, such as the infamously root-kitted music CD's they release that compromised people's machines. Sony - despite "fighting piracy" longer than Nintendo - still does it so horribly wrong that it isn't funny anymore. It's actually pathetic when you consider that they are spending millions on this as opposed to the comparative chump change they were spending if they'd just not dicked around and continued supporting what they'd released out to market - a Linux-capable gaming console capable of high def movie playback, and supporting established standards for flash and disk storage. The slim as it stands, is an insult.

 

[Rydian]

1. If you wanted to retain that functionality, you didn't have to update. It is in Sony's right to prevent you from playing any future gamesBullshit, when you buy the PS3 you're told that it will play PS3 games, and it is advertised as playing those games.

Have you read any of the lawsuits?
If you update you will lose features one way or the other.
Major, advertised, core features of the system.

Read the lawsuits and laws involved before you talk about what's illegal and who has what right, please.
http://ps3movies.ign.com/ps3/document/arti...40/SonySuit.pdf
http://ps3movies.ign.com/ps3/document/arti....226894.1.0.pdf
http://ps3movies.ign.com/ps3/document/arti...20Complaint.pdf

QUOTEThis retroactive crippling PS3 functionality breaches the contract between Sony and it's PS3 customers, breaches the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violates the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law.

It's right fucking there, in the beginning, usually point 2 under "NATURE OF ACTION", which is the first goddamned section of the suit.



But of course, I'm silly for expecting people to actually read about a subject before they try to talk about it, aren't I...

 

[Jiggah]

1. If you wanted to retain that functionality, you didn't have to update. It is in Sony's right to prevent you from playing any future games or getting on their network.

That's where we have to disagree.

Not allowing me to play online (meh), or be able to play new demos or newer games on the system

flies in the face of ethical business practice, and should be illegal (if it already isn't).

I did not "choose" to buy a slim. But if this "phat" ps3 I have dies on me, I would have no other choice for a PS3.

Their latest advertising is "it only does everything". Well, their advertising definitely feels like a blatant lie considering what all they have done since launch to remove things it is able to do. And we as users and consumers shouldn't have to stand or tolerate such bullshit. They should be - rightfully - burned at the stake for these boneheaded moves.

And as geohot had correctly predicted, OtherOS was never necessary to actually hack the PS3. At most, his stuff would have got around Sony's need to update the hypervisor they used as frequently, and possibly allowed for Linux installs to be able to more directly tap into the power of the hardware already there. Meaning, 3D Acceleration for ps3Linux.

Sony may have more "experience" in handling piracy than Nintendo, but they also have committed many more blunders in the name of fighting piracy than Nintendo as well. And many so-called "foolproof" protections from them only went to be beat by very stupidly simple means. The copy-protection on CD's that only required a bit of clear tape around the rim? Or the fact that most PS1's were able to read copied discs that were burned on a black-bottom CD-R and ripped with CloneCD are among many that come to mind. Yet at the same time, we also see very consumer-unfriendly overreactions from them, such as the infamously root-kitted music CD's they release that compromised people's machines. Sony - despite "fighting piracy" longer than Nintendo - still does it so horribly wrong that it isn't funny anymore. It's actually pathetic when you consider that they are spending millions on this as opposed to the comparative chump change they were spending if they'd just not dicked around and continued supporting what they'd released out to market - a Linux-capable gaming console capable of high def movie playback, and supporting established standards for flash and disk storage. The slim as it stands, is an insult.

Both Nintendo and MS implement the exact same policy of firmware upgrading. The only reason people on this forum don't see the Nintendo stuff is because of the homebrew that went into blocking those updates. Just look at the issue when 4.3, or hell when any other Nintendo firmware, comes out. Each of these company have very right to keep you off their system if you don't abide by their rules. When you buy the systems, there's even a EULA explaining what you can and can't do. It's just like signing up for the Temp, you are under their rules for what you can and can't post and they have every right to ban you.

Secondly, it does everything. You can do everything that you wanted to use the Linux side for on the PS3 side. You want a web browser? You got it. You want to play movies? You got it. You want to play games? You got it. What's missing from there? Honestly, nothing. It was a niche feature that appealed to a very small minority of people.

The PS3jailbreak doesn't directly use Geohot's exploit, but the exploit was necessary in the development of the PS3jailbreak. They needed to figure out the call and response routines, which Geohot's exploit allowed them to do. It had a helping hand.

 

[Rydian]

It's just like signing up for the Temp, you are under their rules for what you can and can't post and they have every right to ban you.

Bullshit, a forum is a service, while a game console is a good (though access to the online portion would be a service, OtherOS and PS3 games are goods, they are an inbuilt portion of that product).

There is a very big difference between goods and services, and the laws for each vary.

 

[raulpica]

Actually, the main thing is that the PS3 is a good you've paid for. Which was advertising doing very specific things, like Linux support.

If you remove that function, you're removing value from your product, thus enabling you to ask for a refund for what you actually lost.

It's like having a car without seats, when you first paid for them.
"Here, you can still drive (which is the main thing this car does!) but you can't seat in it anymore!". Nice, but not what I bought in the first place.

 

[Jamstruth]

Rydian, you need your on Phoenix Wright image for this thread. Your avatar behind a bar shouting "BULLSHIT!!"
I formally request it.

There's problems in this. When you start using a product online you agree to a EULA which is a contract which says all these things and that you can't mod it etc. but many clauses are in fact illegal. But you agreed to them voluntarily and said you wouldn't do these things. Thing is that you have to agree to a EULA to use the product, its the same problem with jailbreaking and iPods. To use an iPod at all you must agree to the EULA which says you can't jailbreak but the law says you can, but you have to agree to the EULA to use the product at all. Its impossible to not agree to the EULA and use the product so its a bit of a grey area as to how enforceable the EULAs are.

 

[Gvaz]

I heard the psjailbreak was cloned days ago, what's so special about Mathieulh?

 

[Yoshimashin]

He has done a lot of work on the PSP.

Downgraders, CFW, etc.

 

[DeltaBurnt]

Both Nintendo and MS implement the exact same policy of firmware upgrading. The only reason people on this forum don't see the Nintendo stuff is because of the homebrew that went into blocking those updates. Just look at the issue when 4.3, or hell when any other Nintendo firmware, comes out. Each of these company have very right to keep you off their system if you don't abide by their rules. When you buy the systems, there's even a EULA explaining what you can and can't do. It's just like signing up for the Temp, you are under their rules for what you can and can't post and they have every right to ban you.

When you buy a console, YOU OWN IT. Meaning you should be able to do ANYTHING you want to do with it: tinker with the hardware, hack it, smash it, play games, and INSTALL LINUX (with the exception of hacking their PSN servers, because as stated by Rydian the online portion is a service). When GBATemp says they can ban you for any reason they want it's because they're allowing you specific access to THEIR server, which they own and have all rights too. If they wanted to they could shut down the whole site and only make it available to certain people because they own the server.

However, I think Sony are completely in their right to take away Linux (regardless of whether it's right for them to do it, or whether it should be in their right to do it). When they took away Linux it wasn't mandatory to update and all the functions/goods were kept intact. The only thing that is restricted until you update is the service of online play, which Sony is allowed to restrict for whatever reason they want.

Then again some games require you to update, and sometimes this is because they really do need the new stuff in the latest firmware or Sony's just trying to get you off that old exploit filled version. It's a two way street. I really don't think making someone update to play a game unless it's REALLY needed should be allowed.

The way I see it is Sony blocked Linux and there's really nothing you can do about it, but then again the PS3 was hacked anyways.

Also, who thinks that it was totally out of line for this to be banned in Australia? All it is is just a thumb drive with special parts and data and it specifically requires the original disc to make the backup.

 

[Gvaz]

That may be the case to the consumer, but actually your "rights" are whatever the eula says that you agreed to when running the hardware.

Like some 360 users think they're free to say whatever they want in their profile and get mad when they're banned over it. They're leasing space on the xbox servers, its not "theirs" at all.

 

[Lunatics]

I think comparing people saying offensive things on xbox profiles and forums and getting banned is a little different than a company remotely removing a feature on a good you paid for.

 

[Schizoanalysis]

It's bait and switch.

Sony advertised their console as being able to run Linux, a selling point which sold more consoles, and then they took it away.

If you buy a product for a specific function, and then it no longer perfoms this function (specificaly by the actions of the manufacturer), you have effectively been cheated.

You pay for a product with certain features, but what you get is actually less than you paid for...

Bait and switch.

 

[Gvaz]

I think comparing people saying offensive things on xbox profiles and forums and getting banned is a little different than a company remotely removing a feature on a good you paid for.

I was talking about user rights w/r/t the post above mine, not so much about the removal of other os.

 

[Gagarin]

Let's get back to the subject.
I'm happy that this happened to Sony. After they tooked that other OS they deserved it.
I who would make that psp hack to work as first.

 

[Joe88]

I who would make that psp hack to work as first.

in english plz?

 

[t_jay17]

New Info via Twitter: Buy an AT90USBKEY or Teensy board now and we'll have good news soon...

 

[purplesludge]

Since this is Matieulh we're talking about, there's an high chance of seeing a PSP version of the exploit (hopefully).

I hope so too.

As for people saying Sony had the right to remove other os, no they did not. People in Europe have already had refunds/ partial refunds which shows that it is a consumer right to have what is payed for.
As for the EULA argument will not hold up in court because they are unclear and difficult to read, and the fact that it violates consumer rights means it definitely won't hold up.