munky
Oct 8 2007, 10:33 AM
lord_muad_dib
Oct 8 2007, 10:36 AM
old news, but is good to be remembered
Kiko
Oct 9 2007, 08:20 AM
Its news to most users on this forum who claim that os x wont work because of tpm, and that the kernel is hacked to remove tpm support and other rubbish like that. Thanks munky, maybe you could sticky it in the osx86/ homebrew section?
U.C.
Oct 9 2007, 05:03 PM
What!!!
You fakers, Maxxus, Semthex and all of you claiming to have hacked the kernel and what not.

Not Really. I had read this before, while doing research, but I didnot really believe it.
Kiko
Oct 10 2007, 10:55 PM
Its true, the only thing needed to hack a kernel for a core 2 duo system is remove efi (about 1 or 2 nops) and hardcode the fsb (another 1 or 2 nops)
Cyman
Oct 13 2007, 10:22 PM
Maybe the final version will feature TPM. I still believe that Apple has a surprise for all the OSX86 users. If I am right, we'll see how long it takes until hackers can bypass Apple's measures to prevent Leopard from installing on non-Apple hardware...
Kiko
Oct 13 2007, 11:58 PM
no it wont, the newer macs have no tpm chip. tiger hasnt used it ever. leopard has never used it. And never will
Hagar
Oct 14 2007, 05:32 AM
so what were the issues with appletpmacpi.kext in 10.4.1 all about, then?
Kiko
Oct 15 2007, 02:31 AM
it checked to see if the hardware was there iirc, considering 10.4.1 was only intended for the DTK machines, and considering it was just a standard 915 board, apple had to introduce at least some checks, but no cryptography was being done through the TPM chip, just a check (i may be wrong, as i havent had much hands on with 10.4.1) Also, 10.4.1 was internal Beta, whereas the later builds 10.4.4 etc were released into the public with real macs
Dr. Hurt
Nov 1 2007, 02:39 PM
Then what is the function of decrypts, rXdX and all that stuff?
munky
Nov 15 2007, 04:28 PM
OSX binaries are encrypted, but not using the TPM.
frizbot
Dec 30 2007, 12:20 AM
Supposedly there may be this to contend with as well-
http://www.macrumors.com/2007/12/20/apple-...ghting-patents/"The other filing, patent application #20070288886, deals with attempts to fight software piracy.
A digital rights management system permits an application owner to cause code to be injected into the application's run-time instruction stream so as to restrict execution of that application to specific hardware platforms. In a first phase, an authorizing entity (e.g., an application owner or platform manufacturer) authorizes one or more applications to execute on a given hardware platform. Later, during application run-time, code is injected that performs periodic checks are made to determine if the application continues to run on the previously authorized hardware platform. If a periodic check fails, at least part of the application's execution string is terminated--effectively rendering the application non-usable. The periodic check is transparent to the user and difficult to circumvent.
"
Their link doesn't work for me.
rossby
Nov 18 2008, 05:41 PM
QUOTE(munky @ Oct 8 2007, 10:33 AM)

Did OS X use the TPM at one time to prevent the OS from loading?
Hagar
Nov 18 2008, 05:50 PM
I believe the original intel developer transition kit that ran 10.4.1 - 10.4.3 (before the launch of the real intel macs) checked for the presence of a TPM.
hecker
Nov 18 2008, 06:40 PM
I actually didn't know this for sure. But it's nice. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
bofors
Nov 20 2008, 06:18 AM
QUOTE(Hagar @ Nov 18 2008, 12:50 PM)

I believe the original intel developer transition kit that ran 10.4.1 - 10.4.3 (before the launch of the real intel macs) checked for the presence of a TPM.
This is what I remember as well.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.