OSx86 10.4.2 (Possibly) Leaked?

[maxxuss]

I am having some relevant files from 10.4.2 right now. I would like to make sure that they are not contain any hidden ID.

 

Edit: Removed content violating DMCA

Edited February 17, 2006 by Metrogirl

[JaS]

Edit: Removed content violating DMCA

Edited February 17, 2006 by Metrogirl

[eclipxe]

The original DVD's had different MD5s as well didn't they? I remember vaguely when they were first leaked reading this on the pearpc or concretesurf forums - it was later found to just be a side effect of some other normal process.

 

Just suggesting...

[JaS]

The original DVD's had different MD5s as well didn't they? I remember vaguely when they were first leaked reading this on the pearpc or concretesurf forums - it was later found to just be a side effect of some other normal process.

 

Just suggesting...

 

Yes i remeber that too ... and i agree

[DeathChill]

Yes i remeber that too ... and i agree

The original DVD all had the exact same MD5 sum.

[bofors]

The original DVD's had different MD5s as well didn't they? I remember vaguely when they were first leaked reading this on the pearpc or concretesurf forums - it was later found to just be a side effect of some other normal process.

 

Yes, something like this did come up before. I suspect the details can still be found in some forum thread from about July. The original disks were identical but, _I think and I am not sure_, the installations had different check sums due to the incorporation of individual TPM chip's unique public keys into certain files.

[JaS]

The original DVD all had the exact same MD5 sum.

 

then was it the ###EDIT### that kept changing or was it the ###EDIT###.because i remember something about the md5's kept changing

[bofors]

Here is an old thread that covers the subject: http://forum.osx86project.org/index.php?sh...hl=md5+checksum

 

After reading it, it appear that this is basically what I stated above, however it still was not clear then exactly which files were implicated. Furthermore, and I know it is a pain, any such files probably should not be specifically mentioned here as per the DMCA policy. Any detailed public analysis had better proceed at the Win2OSX forum:

 

http://www.win2osx.net/forum/showthread.ph...sted=1#post8751

[bofors]

Since I am responsible for escalating this leak "rumor" in to a "news" event, I guess I should post some kind of an update.

 

As of now, there still appears to be no publicly availible 10.4.2 torrent. Nonetheless, this new version of OSx86 is certainly around and otherwise in the hands of more than one person interested in making it work for everyone.

 

Apparently, the issue preventing the release of a public torrent appears to be the question of whether or not Apple has "watermarked" (embedded serial numbers in) DVDs to trace back the source of any leak. At this point, the truth of this issue certainly is not clear to me because I have read not any statement to convince me that Apple has in fact done this.

 

However, I suspect that there are people around who may actually know the answer to the "watermarking" question and if this is indeed the case perhaps they would be gracious enough to make some kind of a statement to verify that fact here.

[Takuro]

............................................

[JaS]

They were worried about watermarking when 10.4.1 was leaked. Whatever reasons they had to dispel that feeling should be applicable to this situation.

 

I don't know the truth behind this, but a good friend of one of the people leaking said: He was upset that he didn't get much praise for leaking 10.4.1, and instead the crackers got the spotlight. This time around, he plans to leak it only after he's cracked it. In this way he can't be as easily overshadowed.

 

Again, I'm not sure, but by the sound of it, the leak is ready to go as-is, but he wants to take things a step further before he releases it. It would make more sense to release it in an unaltered form and allow other people to make it a group effort.

 

So those of you looking for this leak may have to keep waiting a good while.

 

Sense and Ego don't go hand-in-hand

[Guest terry]

I don't know the truth behind this, but a good friend of one of the people leaking said: He was upset that he didn't get much praise for leaking 10.4.1, and instead the crackers got the spotlight.

How stupid. If this is true and all is about getting "praise", I'd like to see people get their fame, and in this case even more fame than they initially hoped for... They want fame... Well, with the next releases Apple really should consider to trace them down and sue them, this will get those ego-driven leakers the media attention of their lives, if that's really what they're after.

[DeathChill]

How stupid. If this is true and all is about getting "praise", I'd like to see people get their fame, and in this case even more fame than they initially hoped for... They want fame... Well, with the next releases Apple really should consider to trace them down and sue them, this will get those ego-driven leakers the media attention of their lives, if that's really what they're after.

Naw, there's a difference between wanting a little recognition for doing something and wanting all the glory. Of course someone will get annoyed when they do something huge and then are left in the dust the second they no longer have anything to offer.

[Guest terry]

Naw, there's a difference between wanting a little recognition for doing something

I know this is just a rumor, but "praise" doesn't sound to me like "a little recognition". I think that everyone who is running an illegal copy of Mac OS X for Intel is thankful to the leakers in the first place. So they have their recognition. Or what do they want? Do they want their names to spread in the world? Ok, then prepare to get sued.

 

and wanting all the glory. Of course someone will get annoyed when they do something huge

What's "huge" about leaking a public copy that has been given to thousands of people, and just after it's been verified not to be watermarked? It is quite charitable to those who want to have it, but it's not a huge thing. Leaking earlier, internal versions of Marklar (for instance those old ones that have been compiled for SSE only), or perhaps even builds from Project Star Trek, would be "huge".

[bofors]

They were worried about watermarking when 10.4.1 was leaked. Whatever reasons they had to dispel that feeling should be applicable to this situation.

Takuro, thank you for responding.

 

Just to clarify, my understanding is that no one here is claiming that Apple has in fact watermarked 10.4.2 and that the issue was just being raised to protect the security of potential 10.4.2 sources.

 

I don't know the truth behind this, but a good friend of one of the people leaking said: He was upset that he didn't get much praise for leaking 10.4.1, and instead the crackers got the spotlight. This time around, he plans to leak it only after he's cracked it. In this way he can't be as easily overshadowed.

While I am sure that I am more sensitive to credit issues do to my background, I do not think that anyone should trivialize the importance of proper credit being acknowledged nor the difficulty in doing it right in any collaboration.

 

Here, I think what we need to do is set some standards and/or rules for credit. To start with I would like to consider how Maxxuss has handled this issue. On his patch page, he has specific "Credits" section:

 

Credits

 

Thanks for all members and admins of osx86project for testing' date=' feedback, and file mirrors!

Thanks to adilson for the first working patch of oah750d.

Thanks to omni for a refinement of adilson's patch.[/quote[b']EDIT: Removed content violating DMCA[/b]

Now, this is obviously a great step in the right direction. I am particularly pleased to see adilson's name prominently mentioned here, because I felt that when blex0r demonstarted the this project's first working GUI that adilson's contribution was not well known by the community. However, of course, we see no credit for the source of OSx86 itself.

 

What I propose is that every distribution, whether it be a patch or a complete installation kit, include some kind of a list of credits with it, like a "README" file. However, we also have to deal with the case that people do not want credit for security or other reasons. So, I would also suggest that before adding someone's name (nic) to a credit list that they first be contacted if possible to ask if they want the credit.

 

Next, I think that we as a commnunity should go back to origination of this project and acknowledge all the people who we think made significant contributions, specifically including providing OSx86 in the first place. Hopefully, that will help everyone feel they are getting what they deserve from the community.

Edited February 17, 2006 by Metrogirl

[bofors]

Here is the lastest update on the status of the 10.4.2 leak.

 

Despite the credit issues being raised above, it appears that the real problem is that checksums, in particular MD5's, have failed to match between different OSx86 10.4.2 copies indicating that they may have been marked by Apple to pinpoint the source of any leak. However, I have yet to be convinced that these checksums were properly done and seen several signs indicating that they were not. Although for a variety of reasons, I still doubt that 10.4.2 is actually marked, but it certainly could be true and as time progresses it is becoming more likely to be the truth.

 

Now to give credit should it be wanted, DeathChill is taking the lead in trying to verify that 10.4.2 is indeed marked by checksumming each individual file on two different copies and comparing the results. This analysis should also reveal which specifc files need to be "cleaned", if necessary.

 

The bottom line is that we should be seeing 10.4.2 torrented in the near future, but perhaps not this week if DeathChill's analysis positively identifies signs of marking.

[philter]

Thanks for summing it up for us. Keep us updated.

[domino]

Thanks for the update. Whether it takes a week to months, I don't think it should really matter to the general population. I say give the leak to people that actually contribute to making it run properly on "most" systems.

[niteice]

Can't you md5sum /dev/disk1 instead of the .dmg generated from it? Might be a more reliable method.

[zfire89]

is their any news if this has been leaked yet

[bofors]

is their any news if this has been leaked yet

 

Here is the "news":

 

Some one of high credibility and technical skill seems to be independently indicating that Apple has indeed marked individual 10.4.2 DVDs seeded to developers. We are trying to get this confirmed.

 

If it is true then there will likely be no torrent until this problem has been solved. That might take a few days and of course it is hindered by the fact that only a few people can work on it, those with some kind of access to 10.4.2 already.

[domino]

I have been pondering on whether or not Apple will change the supported hardware on every leaked version. For example, 10.4.1 works on dev boxes with a 915 chipset. Apple can just as easily change the chipset/mobo requirements right?

 

This would mean that those who baught a 300$ wanna be Dev. Box are out of luck?

[bofors]

Apple can just as easily change the chipset/mobo requirements right?

 

No, not without replacing every Dev. Kit they have sold.

 

In other news, I can no confirm that Apple is marking 10.4.2 downloads that are availble to developers. The report that I have just received, that 9 different developers have confirmed that their 10.4.2 builds have distinct MD5 checksums.

 

A cleaning effort is underway, but we should expect that it should take some time.

[domino]

No, not without replacing every Dev. Kit they have sold.

I was under the impression that the dev kits weren't yours to keep and that devs had to reutrn them. And the costs of the dev kits are mere pennies to a Corp. like Apple.

 

Thanks once again for the update!

[gec]

i'd be glad to help cheksums or with anything but i don't have any 10.4.2