Leopard cracked, or "OSx86 - The Next Generation"

Well, finally.

I would like to add that 9A241 is lightyears behind 9A303 in features and everything else. Mostly security features. I know because I have used all three.

Long live Mifki!

Actually, that wasn't half bad.

This is weird. So China has been the world leader in Windows piracy, and apparently Russia is becoming the world leader in Macintosh piracy? First Daemon ES, now this. I just hope that this doesn't make Apple beef up its protection at the last minute.

This reminds me of the first screenshots of Tiger when it was hacked. A LOT of things look like they're basically broken.

This is weird. So China has been the world leader in Windows piracy, and apparently Russia is becoming the world leader in Macintosh piracy? First Daemon ES, now this. I just hope that this doesn't make Apple beef up its protection at the last minute.

 

This reminds me of the first screenshots of Tiger when it was hacked. A LOT of things look like they're basically broken.

Who knows how many parts are from Tiger. The ? marks could easily get fixed. It doesn't even show the default Mac OS background screen.

It does show the Kernel, but I am wondering how easily that could be faked as well.

Until I see 10.5. running on my PC, I will assume its a phony. Though I was amazed when I first got Deadmoo's image to work on a PC and I thought it was probably fake too. - gt

Though I was amazed when I first got Deadmoo's image to work on a PC and I thought it was probably fake too. - gt

off topic: what happened to deadmoo anyways?

I had deadmoo for lunch yesterday.

I'm almost positive that this is not fake because I've ran Leopard on my PC using the hacked 10.4.8 kernel. It booted all the way up until loginwindow, where it gave bad system calls.

From a strategic point of view, I think alerting Apple to any beta-Leopard cracks before it is publically released (10.5.0) is kind of stupid.

Now, Apple has months to figure out a way to make sure that this crack will not work with the final version of Leopard.

Hmm I think these screens are for real since patching Leo WWDC is kind of trival. To clean up with the rumors, there are no new security features, just a new CPUID check. That's all.

Here a short overview of Leo changes needed

- disable additional CPUID

- patch TSC to use a fixed value

- emualte /efi via /rom

(- remove a commpage panic if needed*)

That's all the magic, so it's not dumb to publish the hack. Later builds are not that easy.

My guess is that Apple, if what they announced is true, have not yet included the new security features to Leo. If so it's a intelligent move to avoid it beeing cracked before release, but who really needs a half finished beta on his box?

* cpu dependant

Later builds are not that easy.

I hope that any progress towards cracking these will stay private until the appropriate time, that is after Leopard (10.5.0) is publically released.

A basic problem is more about the news itself. Promoting a Leo to be cracked means you admit you own a copy of it. Even if it's legal to make stuff work in a lot of more free countrys than the US, most of them do not allow software piracy. Apple already sued ppl for just showing Leo screenshots (-> i.e. macrumors)

This is a legal hook apple may use and you will be taken down faster than you can turn around in place.

o_O

That doesn't sounds good...

Here is how it looks like if apple strikes for published Leopard screens: http://www.hardmac.com/articles/60/

I do not think that Apple has actually sued MacRumors, Hardmac or anybody for posting Leopard screenshots. Furthermore, screenshots really have nothing to do with the issue of cracking either (obviously, screenshots need not be posted). The only relevant lawsuit that I am aware of here would be when Apple sued three WWDC members for leaking PPC Tiger betas at MTKA two years ago. But again, that had nothing to do with cracking, it was a leaking issue.

The issue I am concerned about here is not a legal one, but rather whether it is strategically wise for the OSx86 community to publically reveal its progress toward cracking Leopard while it is a beta. My point is simply that it is not. Just as Apple tries to keep information about Leopard secret during its development, so should OSx86 hackers.

semthex you are rigth about Leopard patching, patching are very similar to Tiger kernel.

Takuro

First Daemon ES, now this.

Why is it, from the original post here, that having leopard cracked is so bad and looking toward Apple as to "Why oh why??". Uh, everything is cracked. Everything!

I do not think that Apple has actually sued MacRumors, Hardmac or anybody for posting Leopard screenshots. Furthermore, screenshots really have nothing to do with the issue of cracking either (obviously, screenshots need not be posted). The only relevant lawsuit that I am aware of here would be when Apple sued three WWDC members for leaking PPC Tiger betas at MTKA two years ago. But again, that had nothing to do with cracking, it was a leaking issue.

 

The issue I am concerned about here is not a legal one, but rather whether it is strategically wise for the OSx86 community to publically reveal its progress toward cracking Leopard while it is a beta. My point is simply that it is not. Just as Apple tries to keep information about Leopard secret during its development, so should OSx86 hackers.

My point is another one, Apple is very pissed about everything related to Leopard (screens are just an example and you will find proofs for their behaviour all over the net) and if someone tell "look, I cracked it" he confess in the same sentence he owns a pirated copy of it (at least in 99,9%) of the cases and gives Apple a hook to fill possibly lawsuite agains him/her (because of software piracy and track him/her down, even if reversign and patching is allowed in his/her country).

With that you are unsafe in any country, since software piracy is prohibited nearly everythere. So my point is, talking about a cracked Leo in public is some kind of self destructive.

The public reveal (in strategy point of view) is not bad, not for WWDC. As I discribed above, there is no big diffrence (yet) to the basic patches in 10.4.8 source which need to be done (except the CPUID) to get it working.

semthex you are rigth about Leopard patching, patching are very similar to Tiger kernel.

@DaemonES:

Now, Apple has months to figure out a way to make sure that this crack will not work with the final version of Leopard.

I completely agree. The same kind of problem happens with PSP and Sony, when a PSP firmware is hacked Sony quickly tries to repair the hack with a new update or even trying to force owners to update by requiring a new firmware to play new games. With the creation of loaders that can play games requiring new updates, Sony has even tried offering new features other then game play to convince owners to update.

I completely agree. The same kind of problem happens with PSP and Sony, when a PSP firmware is hacked Sony quickly tries to repair the hack with a new update or even trying to force owners to update by requiring a new firmware to play new games. With the creation of loaders that can play games requiring new updates, Sony has even tried offering new features other then game play to convince owners to update.

The discussion about publish or not is pointless, don't any of you read the whole thread? There are NO NEW security checks (beside a simple CPUID) in Leopard. So Apple has either not added them yet OR there are simply no really new.... In later releases there are some other things but read my statement about leo, legal and cracking it above.

I hope that any progress towards cracking these will stay private until the appropriate time, that is after Leopard (10.5.0) is publically released.

As I recall, the same kind of thing was said a year ago about Tiger. Look how that turned out. Don't you think Apple knows that their OS will be cracked? Hell, they give us the tools to do it (Xcode and the kernel source)!

As I recall, the same kind of thing was said a year ago about Tiger. Look how that turned out. Don't you think Apple knows that their OS will be cracked? Hell, they give us the tools to do it (Xcode and the kernel source)!

There is no source for Leopard, it was bin patched. The problem about this is, there is no "uncrackable", if people want to they will ever find a way. The only thing I am curious of is if they really will use sigantures and crypto in final as some rumors told. The "protections" against patching, as given in WWDC are simply not present. Later builds have funny other tactics but nothing what would be compareable to a real protection like sigantures or cryptho, xoring, packing, [insert your favorite bin protection here]...

I am also curious about the usage of cfs, which seems like they have implemented it into Leos latest build, but this another point, nothing to do with cracking, so we will see in final

There is no source for Leopard, it was bin patched.

I realize that the source for Leopard is not currently available, but I was talking about after the release (and currently with Tiger). After Leopard is released, the kernel source will be available (unless Apple changes their current policy), which will make hacking it easier.

I realize that the source for Leopard is not currently available, but I was talking about after the release (and currently with Tiger). After Leopard is released, the kernel source will be available (unless Apple changes their current policy), which will make hacking it easier.

Sure but there is once again a new point: APSL changed, so hacking with sources will be illegal. Another point is I know/think there will be more protections in not open sourced stuff.