Mr. Mister
Member
ivedoneyourmom said:
You would be getting hundreds of dialogs per minute.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
PS3 OFW 3.56 New Feature: Rootkit (allegedly)
- Thread starter Vagabundo
- Start date
You would be getting hundreds of dialogs per minute.
ivedoneyourmom said:
As for your first point - your analogy - and I hate analogies. The problem with your analogy here is that you are renting a place and was asked if it was okay if your landlord's brother occasionally comes into your place you are renting, and you agreed (ie, the ToS/EULA agreement with the new firmware).
As for your second point, the program only runs when connecting to PSN (and as of right now, it's not even connecting home yet from my understanding). The connection to PSN is establishing a secure connection to Sony's servers and is once again detailed in the PSN TOS/EULA which has been listed for a while (since the beginning I believe) as allowing Sony to run programs or remove programs without notifications. What's the problem here?
TheChewyWaffles
Member
biocat said:
It is now (muhahahahaaa)
marathonfool
Member
For me, Argyle already summarized it pretty well 10 pages ago.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=25660150&postcount=179
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=25660150&postcount=179
ivedoneyourmom said:
And the ToS/EULA has been established since the beginning as allowing Sony to add or remove programs without notification. You purchased the PS3 with this ToS/EULA in place with the ToS/EULA enabled online for you to be able to view (it provides the details of this on the box - where to view it). Since you were the one who purchased the item, how much responsibility do you have in understanding that you purchased the system without duress and should (at least in an idea world), fully understand your purchase before making it?
I understand that ToS/EULAs aren't necessary the strongest legally binding items in the world, but realistically speaking, if someone is so against a ToS or EULA, shouldn't they not purchase the item to begin with?
Just curious...
HylianScribe
Member
So 3.56 killed my BD playback (games still work). 60GB Fat model with PS2 BC. Called tech support, ran through their suggestions (one of which caused a "serious error" which I thought killed my console), and still no luck. Told me I had to ship it in and pay 129.99+tax to fix the BD playback. Blu-Ray players are cheaper than that...so I told them that was ridiculous. When I suggested the firmware update broke this, tech support replied that I had a hardware issue that was brought to light by the firmware update, and the firmware had nothing to do with the broken functionality. Is there anyway to JB/CFW on 3.55 or earlier to fix blu-ray stuff? I know I'm on 3.56, but when/if it gets cracked, if there's a blu ray fix, this is motivation enough for me.
RyanDG said:
Was that ToS/EULA offered to me before or after Sony got my money? Maybe they should have everyone that agrees to their conditions sign an agreement prior to handing over money and walking out with a PS3.
And you are right, maybe I shouldn't have purchased a PS3, or maybe I should have done research as to the agreement prior to my purchase, however the agreement is pretty open ended on Sony's side being that whatever you agree to it is always subject to Sony's revision and amendment - but never your own.
ivedoneyourmom said:
Yes, the TOS/EULA is displayed online openly and it states where to find it on the box.
Edit - As for your second point, I'm not trying to single out anyone specifically about this. It's just one of those things where in these sorts of threads a lot of people turn around and simply scoff at EULAs or TOS agreements as being practically worthless. While that is up for debate is a completely sordid history of different cases to go through, ultimately it comes down to this... Consumers - while their rights should be protected - should also be informed purchasers. Too many times I've seen people basically go 'lol EULA/TOS', when the bigger question is, if the clauses in the EULA or TOS are so horrible for you to accept - why did you give the company your money to begin with? It's an interesting question... People hide behind the lack of legal weight to a EULA, but are openly purchasing the product knowing (or at least they should know), what they are agreeing to before purchase. Seems like if the EULA or TOS agreement is so difficult for them to abide by, perhaps they should look at another company that doesn't offer the same restrictions for them? Just my thoughts.
HylianScribe
Member
RyanDG said:
I was not, but what was the fix (so I can keep tabs on it if CFW 3.56 ever comes out)? A quick google search turned up mostly "you're screwed" replies. Apparently this happened back during 3.15 FW. Some people had their BD playback disabled, and Sony told them tough luck.
NullPointer
Member
I'd be pretty damned upset if I bought a PS3 partially because of OtherOS only to have Sony force the choice between keeping it or having access to everything else the console provides. Regardless of their EULA it sets a horrible precedent.RyanDG said:
I think Sony felt up against the wall and decided they had to remove the feature, which I can understand. But the right thing to do at that point would have been to offer full refunds.
RyanDG said:
Yeah, because people wait in line for a day and when they get into the Gamestop and get handed the PS3 box they look at the back, find a URL, write it down, go home type it in, grab their legal dictionary, read the 100 or so pages, drive back to the Gamestop and ask for the clerk to hand them their PS3 that they were so nice to hold on to while telling the other 100 people at the end of the line that didn't get a launch day PS3 that they are now out of stock.
NullPointer said:
I understand being upset. However, if it is being listed of the possibility to occur, is it really the smartest thing to give the company your money to begin with? I'm a bit torn on this issue, I'm completely for consumer rights in a lot of ways, but ultimately consumers need to be informed about what they are really purchasing and how it may change by making the purchase. I believe that consumers themselves also have a responsibility to make decisions with their wallets, and they need to support companies that offer the protections they want. If the EULA of the PS3 offers points that you don't support or possibly couldn't handle if changed, the purchase of the PS3 probably shouldn't have been made to begin with.
ivedoneyourmom said:
I believe in an informed consumer. If you really needed a PS3 that badly, and you are concerned about possibly licensing agreements, why aren't you looking it up before hand? Most people don't care about EULAs or TOS agreements - they just agree - for those that do, you should be doing that before the purchase if you are absolutely needing to get it right then. But as much as it is the responsibility for the company to disclose items, it is also up to the customer to be as informed as possible - especially when everything is available freely online with little to no google searching skills required.
Raist said:
No, not at all.
What I'm saying is you seriously need to read the EULA before you can be *held accountable* for its contents. That is all.
Edit:
So RyanDG, are/were you an informed or ignorant consumer? Do you read all your agreements before you agree to them?
Fun fact: according to the waybackmachine; the first instance of the eula found at scei.co.jp/ps3-eula (which is printed on the back of my box) was reported on Nov 29, 2006; 12 days *after* I purchased my PS3.
Hard to read something that didn't exist.
Dambrosi said:
That's certainly more apt.
ivedoneyourmom said:
It's not up for debate. Every time you power your PS3 on, Sony quite literally has privileged access to your hardware. What do you think firmware is? Software with privileged access to hardware. Sony having privileged access to your PS3 is inherent to the hardware.
NullPointer
Member
RyanDG said:
So, it is reasonable to expect that a PS3 you purchase today will still play Blurays a year from now? Still play games? Or that an Xbox would do the same?
I wish the law was clearer on this, because over time matters seem to be only getting worse. Shutting down servers for online games after as little as a year from release is one example, destroying the value of those games. Or requiring paid DLC purchases in order to keep playing the online game you bought six months ago. Just how much leeway do service providers have in deciding that they can eliminate marketed features at any time?
TSA said:
I'll have to check with my friend to be absolutely certain, but iirc it had to do with finding out the first bluray disk that was played on the system and the last and then using a tool he found online to get the playback back. I'll let you know via PM if I get a response back from him.
NullPointer
Member
Sure as hell not me, but it *was* marketed as a feature, and that to me requires some responsibility by the provider to keep to their word and maintain that feature. If the feature is removed later, customers should be entitled to some kind of recompense.asdad123 said:
Also, the way I understand it OtherOS wasn't completely gimped by not having RSX access, as the cell architecture is pretty capable on its own.
NullPointer said:
I do wish the law was clearer on this. To be perfectly honest, when it comes down to it - I'm a firm supporter in custom firmware. I have two PS3s, one with custom firmware, one without. However, I do this reasonably. I understand I'm breaking Sony's licensing agreements for their operating system by using the custom firmware right now, and will be until someone comes with a completely re-written firmware/OS for the console. I don't expect to be able to get onto PSN or play online games with my CFW'd PS3.
As for my system with the official firmware, I see no problems with Sony doing what they are doing. They explicitly state what they are and are not allowed to do with the console in terms of delivering content and running programs without notifications. Heck, the agreement also explicitly states that they could potentially be collecting information on your console at any time you are connected to the internet with the connection in place. I think it's just disingenuous to be upset for those that argue against sony being able to do this on official firmware or even a modified firmware that is being used in an attempt to connect to any part of Sony's network or with a PS3 connection to the internet using a part of Sony's operating system - which is what its doing now with in existing CFW.
The problem with the current custom firmware is that a lot of the base of the firmware is still Sony's software. Until the homebrew community gets away from that, there's going to be a lot of issues and concerns for those using modified firmware.
As for the final point about removing bluray playback or gaming playback... I guess that's where becoming an informed user comes in. If faced with the choice, I would absolutely be upset. It's a tough situation all around just because of the nature of what a console is versus a PC for example.
phosphor112
Banned
iceatcs said:
Firstly, the term rootkit is incorrect. What the code does is do a system check making sure all syscalls and files meet an integrity or has check. The whole "remote code excecution" has to do with it changing every so often when connecting to the server, so the check requirements don't stay constant on the PS3. That prevents hackers or coders to successfully block, remove, or work around the code... well because it's constantly changing. The won't replace updating with this system check method they are using because firmware is still bound to their EULA and TOS.
You are allowed to send back a product if the EULA or TOS is something you do not want to agree with. Even the US. Open a PC game, has a "shrink wrap" or "pre-install" TOS that you don't want, send it back, tell them it's for that reason.ivedoneyourmom said:
Boombloxer
Member
hirokazu said:
Pretty much. I'm not worried about it.
ivedoneyourmom said:
The PS3's EULA for system software has not changed since december 2009, and even then, has only been updated I believe, a total of 4 times since it was activated.
I believe you may be confusing the PS3's EULA for system software agreement and the PSN's TOS agreement. The Terms of Service agreement for the PSN changes quite often, and isn't the same because it has no bearing on the operation of your platform - only access to PSN services and PSN based software programs.
Edit - And to answer your question.
You are given the option to upgrade or not. I believe that the problem here is that you may own the system, but you don't own the software running the system. The issue isn't with the system, but rather the software you are using, so it really wouldn't be subject to a return possibly for disagreeing with an updated EULA since you are given the option not to update and still own the system.
It's a bad situation for customers, but until it's established that we own the software in the PS3 running the system, or someone comes up with an alternative software that provides the same features you want - you have to make a hard choice as a consumer.
I think the Australian case can be disregarded, the judge threw the case out because the guy claimed he was not properly informed of the changes in the update when the installer clearly gave multiple warnings prior to the user proceeding.RyanDG said:
The debate about whether it was actually legal for Sony to have removed features that were initially advertised never reached court because the guy or his lawyers spun a whole different issue out of it.
RyanDG said:
Yeah, I wasn't being completely serious there. Anyway, I still think it is funny looking back and seeing that the website the back of the box points to for the EULA didn't even exist when I purchased the device.
What's done is done; Sony handled things the exact opposite way I think should have happened, and it wasn't very nice. Due to how they dealt with the PS3 I'm going to have some serious reservations about purchasing a PS4 or anything else they want to sell me. I'll be definitely sure to not be first in line this time, and even more sure to read their 'conditions' on what I can do with 'my' hardware if I do decide to get anything else from them.
I promise not to get back on PSN, it's theirs and I have not right to it - I just wish they wouldn't bind Netflix access to their network.
If you want to compare it in computing terms, the issue there is that Sony has always effectively been the system administrator, or 'root' of every PS3 sold, and as the system administrator, they have allowed a method to load code that checks the integrity of the system.Dambrosi said:
This is no different from a Windows network admin who mass deploys antivirus updates, or on the Mac, using Apple Remote Desktop to monitor the installed software and deploy software updates.
You could theoretically label programs such as Apple Remote Desktop as a backdoor as well if a malicious person exploits it without authorisation or knowledge from someone who is otherwise the de facto administrator.
No, it's not. The operating system is the arbiter of who gets privileged access. It cannot do so unless it has privileged access itself.ivedoneyourmom said:
If it didn't, you'd try to turn your PS3 on and nothing would happen because the operating system wouldn't be authorized to start.
hirokazu said:
Do you have a source that the case was thrown out due to the consent issue? From my understanding, I thought it was disregarded because the ACCC determined no wrong on the part of Sony for both the consent and ability to remove the additional feature per terms of service. I've read it a lot of different ways though, and most sources seem to stem from an Australian news source without any real documentation (and then picked up on by gaming sites who twist and manipulate the information). I'm really curious to actually review the case ruling because it would shed a lot of light on a lot of different things that seem to be speculation at this point.
phosphor112
Banned
hirokazu said:
It's pretty much like Warden. Blizzards anti-cheat system they used for a while. The thing is, Warden used to check for system files (on an OS that they did not make). Sony, on the other hand are doing an integrity check on a system they made so they can prevent circumvented users from gaining access to their network. Though, the Sony alternative is probably even less intrusive. Warden checked common DLLs an and other files, though they mainly checked code that was in memory, while Sony's will probably just do a quick memory hash check.
ivedoneyourmom said:
And this is why the homebrew development community needs to be encouraged to develop their own system software and firmware written from scratch rather than piggy backing off of Sony's. By using Sony's, they are limiting their users in what they can do and are also doing a disservice to possible creativity coming out of the custom firmware community.
Unfortunately, it's a lot easier to try to mess with Sony's official firmware, so I doubt anyone is actually going to do it. But we can wish.
krypt0nian
Banned
CozMick said:
I'm loving it.
ivedoneyourmom said:
If you want to play PS3 games with your system. No. That's not a fair proposition since you are going to be running Sony's system software (currently) to do so (even on modified firmware).
If you are wanting to do whatever else in the world with your PS3 you could do - such as run linux, etc, absolutely, which is why I'm in favor to opening up the system to jailbreak it to do so.
The problem with this issue is like I mentioned before, the modified firmware is still being based on existing Sony software and because of that, until that changes, there's a lot of questions about the support of what you are suggesting.
phosphor112
Banned
RyanDG said:
That would be nice. If they truly want custom firmware, I think they should have to do it theirs elves. It would remove some official key features, like playing games, but I'm sure they can make some great stuff out of it without dealing with so many legal issues.
While I don't like the ignorant and childish babble that happens, it is pretty funny.krypt0nian said:
RustyNails
Member
I bumped the Hotz thread about this, but Sony won the restraining order and is going to seize Hotz' personal computers and consoles. The court also thought Sony has a good case.
This was my understanding from what I read about it at the time. I may be wrong, but I'd have to double check.RyanDG said:
EDIT: At least one site I read back then went into more detail about the decision than anything I can find now. All the stuff Google brings up just has a brief mention of the ACCC finding no issue with Sony's actions. :\
krypt0nian
Banned
phosphor112 said:
Agreed. But the "homebrew" nonsense is starting to fuck with my online games and I'm glad it's being shut down.
RyanDG said:
I wasn't talking about running games, I was talking about who ultimately has what say over the instructions that get ran on a system. I get that Sony writes the software, and that gives them the right to determine what that software does - however Sony never gave us a way to *not* use their software. Having a PS3 forces me to be subject to Sony's rule because they don't permit anything but their software to run on 'your' machine.
And I don't really regard the modified firmware as modified. I have digital books that have typos that constitute a higher degree of difference than between geohot's patch. In fact, his entire patch would have only been a change in a xml config file if it weren't for him not wanting to release a crack to npdrm.
If someone edited a file in /etc on *nix, or an ini file on Windows or changed a setting on defaults with a mac, I wouldn't consider their OS to be custom. Why should I consider a minor change in an xml config file on a PS3 to be custom?
Anyway, Sony should have released an OtherOS key and allowed everyone/anyone to write whatever OS they want to run on the hardware; but they didn't - my guess as to why they didn't do it that way is because they realized they fucked up on the random number almost immediately after they went to production. So they went some crazy route of running Linux under the hypervisor, then pulled OtherOS support all together once they realized that that too can be hacked.
As it stands, there is no way to by Sony's definition 'legally' run anything except for their OS on the PS3, and I think that is wrong.
FLEABttn: that is EXACTLY what I am calling for, I am saying Sony NEEDS to let us run something that is not their OS.