iPod Linux lock-out defeated (PC Pro)
iPod Linux lock-out defeated (PC Pro)
Posted Sep 17, 2007 15:32 UTC (Mon) by hpp (subscriber, #4756)Parent article: iPod Linux lock-out defeated (PC Pro)
Do we have any indication at all that this change by Apple was ever intended to lock out competing programs (e.g. on Linux) feeding an iPod?
Adding a checksum to a database file is avery useful mechanism to detect corruption or incomplete syncs and Apple can make changes like that without intending to lock out other programs. A hash-based checksum is quite a different thing than a digital signature, which is well within Apple's means to implement and would have been much harder to defeat.
Posted Sep 17, 2007 16:14 UTC (Mon)
by bluss (guest, #47454)
[Link] (1 responses)
The indication is that the hash was not based only on the database; it was the hash of a blob of database data combined with some kind of device-specific id number and some secret sauce (a "formerly secret number", as mentioned in the article). If data integrity was the only concern, then the database would be the only thing to hash.
Posted Sep 17, 2007 17:01 UTC (Mon)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link]
It's just a half-assed, and very blatent, attempt at lock-in. Similar to, say, if a software vendor had some sort of hash restriction on a file format.. say for a CAD drawing or something. Except this is just a hardware device instead of a file format.
So if there is no attempt to protect against any sort of copyright violation then there is no tie in to the DMCA... right? So it's legal to include in US-destined software.
Just speculating, I am no lawyer.
> Do we have any indication at all that this change by Apple was ever intended to lock out competing programs (e.g. on Linux) feeding an iPod?iPod Linux lock-out defeated (PC Pro)
Then it's not even a half-harted attempt at DRM, is it? I mean it doesn't do anything to stop people from copying files off the device, does it?iPod Linux lock-out defeated (PC Pro)